[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 162 (2016), Part 12]
[Senate]
[Pages 16386-16412]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




     GEORGE P. KAZEN FEDERAL BUILDING AND UNITED STATES COURTHOUSE

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask the Chair to lay before the body 
the message to accompany Calendar No. 65, S. 612.
  The Presiding Officer laid before the Senate the following message 
from the House of Representatives:

       Resolved, That the bill from the Senate (S. 612) entitled 
     ``An Act to designate the Federal building and United States 
     courthouse located at 1300 Victoria Street in Laredo, Texas, 
     as the `George P. Kazen Federal Building and United States 
     Courthouse'.'', do pass with an amendment.


                            Motion to Concur

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I move to concur in the House amendment 
to S. 612.


                             Cloture Motion

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I send a cloture motion to the desk on 
the motion to concur.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The cloture motion having been presented under 
rule XXII, the Chair directs the clerk to read the motion.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

[[Page 16387]]



                             Cloture Motion

       We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the 
     provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate, 
     do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the motion to 
     concur in the House amendment to Calendar No. 65, S. 612, an 
     act to designate the Federal building and the United States 
     courthouse located at 1300 Victoria Street in Laredo, Texas, 
     as the ``George P. Kazen Federal Building and United States 
     Courthouse.''
         James M. Inhofe, Roger F. Wicker, Orrin G. Hatch, Johnny 
           Isakson, John Cornyn, Thad Cochran, Mike Crapo, Pat 
           Roberts, Bill Cassidy, John Hoeven, John Barrasso, Thom 
           Tillis, John Boozman, John Thune, Daniel Coats, Marco 
           Rubio, Mitch McConnell.


                Motion to Concur With Amendment No. 5144

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I move to concur in the House amendment 
to S. 612, with a further amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Kentucky [Mr. McConnell] moves to concur 
     in the House amendment to S. 612 with an amendment numbered 
     5144.

  Mr. McCONNELL. I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the 
amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

       At the end add the following:
       ``This act shall be effective 1 day after enactment.''

  Mr. McCONNELL. I ask for the yeas and nays on the motion to concur 
with the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.


                Amendment No. 5145 to Amendment No. 5144

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I have a second-degree amendment at the 
desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Kentucky [Mr. McConnell] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 5145 to amendment No. 5144.

  Mr. McCONNELL. I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the 
amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:
       Strike ``1 day'' and insert ``2 days''.


                Motion to Refer with Amendment No. 5146

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I move to refer the House message on S. 
612 to the Committee on Environment and Public Works with instructions 
to report back forthwith with an amendment numbered 5146.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Kentucky [Mr. McConnell] moves to refer 
     the House message on S. 612 to the Committee on Environment 
     and Public Works with instructions to report back forthwith 
     with an amendment numbered 5146.

  The amendment is as follows:

       At the end add the following:
       ``This act shall be effective 3 days after enactment.''
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on my 
motion.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.


                           Amendment No. 5147

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I have an amendment to the 
instructions.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Kentucky [Mr. McConnell] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 5147 to the instructions of the motion to 
     refer the House message to accompany S. 612.

  Mr. McCONNELL. I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the 
amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

       Strike ``3 days'' and insert ``4 days''.

  Mr. McCONNELL. I ask for the yeas and nays on my amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.


                Amendment No. 5148 to Amendment No. 5147

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I have a second-degree amendment at the 
desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Kentucky [Mr. McConnell] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 5148 to amendment No. 5147.

  The amendment is as follows:

       Strike ``4'' and insert ``5''.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.


                          Tribute to Dan Coats

  Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, as this session of Congress draws to a 
close, it provides us with an opportunity to acknowledge and express 
our appreciation to those Members of the Senate who will be retiring in 
a few weeks. One of those who will be retiring and will be greatly 
missed is Dan Coats of Indiana. Dan has had an interesting career and 
through his more than 15 years in the Senate has made a difference.
  He has been a reliable vote for the best interests of his home State 
and the future of the Nation, and he leaves behind a legacy of which he 
should be very proud. Dan's first years of service in the Congress 
began in 1981, when he served in the House of Representatives. He was 
then appointed to the United States Senate when Dan Quayle was elected 
Vice President.
  He served in the Senate from 1989 to 1999, when his self-imposed 
term-limit pledge brought to an end his first years in the Senate. It 
was not long thereafter that Dan was again asked to serve, this time as 
Ambassador to Germany.
  He arrived in Germany and took up his service there just before our 
Nation experienced the tragic event of September 11. Our relationship 
with our allies took on prime importance after that, and we were 
fortunate to have Dan abroad to maintain our strong friendship with the 
German Government and people.
  Several years later, the Indiana Senate seat was open again, and Dan 
took up the challenge to run again to serve the people of his home 
State in the Senate. The people of Indiana and our Nation, 
conservatives and people of faith, have been fortunate to have Dan to 
rely on. He has been a steady and dependable force for taking better 
care of our Nation's finances and keeping a close watch on our 
security.
  Last year, after a great deal of prayer and thought and 
consideration, Dan did announce that he would not be running for 
another term in the Senate. It was a decision he made once again with 
the people of his home State in mind. He has always been determined to 
have the best representatives in place to serve the people of Indiana 
and address those issues that most concerned him.
  With that in mind, Dan announced that he believed ``the time has come 
to pass this demanding job to the next generation of leaders.'' We will 
miss Dan. We will miss his background and experience. We will miss his 
reasonable, appropriate, and well-timed comments and his ability to get 
results. I look forward to his next challenge or adventure and know he 
will continue to look out for what is best for our Nation and our 
people.
  Dan has been a great source of strength and support for our party and 
he will be missed. To you, Dan, Diana and I join in sending our best 
wishes and our appreciation to you and Marsha. Together, you have been 
great examples of the importance of public service. The organization 
you founded, the Foundation for American Renewal, and the Project for 
American Renewal that you created have helped you to focus on and work 
toward solutions to many of our problems.
  That is also a part of our legacy and why you will continue to 
receive the recognition you deserve. You have also been a part of a 
number of community and volunteer organizations. For these and so many 
more reasons, we thank you and Marsha for devoting so much

[[Page 16388]]

of your life to making our Nation a better place to live. You certainly 
achieved that goal and we wish you both the best.


                      Tribute to Barbara Mikulski

  Mr. President, I also want to take some time today to speak about the 
senior Senator from Maryland, Barbara Mikulski. In the years to come, 
Senator Mikulski will be known for a lot of things that made her years 
of service to the people of Maryland quite remarkable. It will always 
be mentioned that she has been the longest serving woman in the history 
of the United States Congress.
  Although that is important, Senator Mikulski did not come to 
Washington to see how long she could stay. She came here to see how 
much of a difference she could make. In the end, she served for so many 
years because of what she was able to do with her time in the House and 
then in the Senate. The people of Maryland have such a strong affection 
for Senator Mikulski because they always felt like she was one of them. 
She never lost touch with the people back home.
  Her family name was well known to the people in her neighborhood 
because her parents ran a grocery store. Every morning they opened 
their store early so people could stop by to pick up something before 
they headed off to work.
  In that, and so many other ways, her family played an important role 
in the day-to-day life of their neighborhood and her neighbors never 
forgot that. When the opportunity came for Senator Mikulski to run for 
a seat in the House representing Baltimore, she didn't hesitate. She 
took her case to the people and they liked what they heard. She won 
what was to be the first of a long series of elections, each of which 
she won easily and impressively.
  Senator Mikulski has a number of interests, and one of the things I 
am sure she enjoyed about Congress has been her ability to take up a 
number of those issues to make a difference in people's lives. In 
everything she has done, she has always found a way to help the people 
back home. A key example of that is her fight over ``the road.'' The 
battle dates back to 1966 when Barbara was a social worker in 
Baltimore. The city council proposed building a highway to connect 
downtown Baltimore to its suburbs, a plan that Barbara worried would 
cause Polish Americans, African Americans, and lower income residents 
to lose their homes. As is her way, Barbara sprung to action by forming 
a community group of opposition. The road was blocked. Barbara wound up 
on the city council, and the area where the road was supposed to be 
built is now one of Baltimore's biggest draws.
  As far as her work in the Senate goes, one of her many legislative 
victories that I will long remember is work she did on something that 
came to be known as Rosa's Law. Rosa was a 9-year-old young lady who 
was diagnosed with Down syndrome. Her mother was well aware of what a 
hurtful label things like ``mental retardation'' and ``mentally 
retarded'' were to those who saw them in the Federal laws that were 
written to help them. Barbara knew there was only one solution to this 
problem and that was to eliminate those terms from Federal law.
  I was pleased to able to help in the effort to pass that bill, seeing 
how much it meant not only to Rosa and her family but to Senator 
Barbara Mikulski. Our work on that bill will stay with me and will be a 
reminder of the reason we work so hard to pass legislation and answer 
the needs of the people back home.
  In the end, it is all about making lives better. That is something 
Barbara has done every day of her service in Congress. As the longest 
serving woman in Congress, she has continued to earn the title of 
``Dean of Senate Women.'' She has been a mentor and source of good 
advice to her colleagues who appreciated being able to ask for her 
opinion and her guidance on their work on the Senate.
  She certainly helped me when I was a new Senator and was advocating 
for low-income housing in Jackson, one of the rich areas of our State. 
With her support, we got that done and made sure there was a mix in the 
community of different occupations and people.
  Her reputation has been to not only help the Members of the Senate 
with whom she has served, it also helped serve to encourage the women 
of Maryland to get active and involved in the work that must be done to 
make her home State and our Nation better places to live. In a very 
real sense, her leadership skills have inspired the next generation of 
Maryland's leaders.
  Now Senator Mikulski is leaving the Senate after having made a 
difference and leaving her mark on the history of Congress. One of the 
key things she will be remembered for is her tireless support of NIH. I 
know they will miss her and her commitment to the principles and values 
that guided her through her career, from her service on the Baltimore 
City Council to her work in the House of Representatives and then the 
Senate. She made a difference everywhere she served. For that reason 
and for many more, she will never be forgotten.
  My wife Diana and I join in sending our best wishes to Senator 
Mikulski for her years of service. Now that her Senate adventure has 
come to an end, she will undoubtedly come up with more challenges to 
pursue in the years to come. I am hoping these plans might include a 
followup to her mystery novel that was set in the Senate. We are 
looking forward to seeing what the next chapter of her life may 
include.
  Good luck to these fellow Senators.


                         Tribute to harry reid

  Mr. President, at the end of each Congress, the Senate tradition is 
to pause for a moment to share our thoughts about those Senators who 
will be retiring when the final gavel brings the session to a close. 
One of those senators who will be leaving the Senate is Harry Reid. 
Senator Reid is quite a remarkable individual, and his story should be 
read and considered by students of government and history--of all ages.
  Over the years, I have spent some time with Harry at prayer 
breakfasts and listened to his reflections on his life--personally and 
politically. He has lived a life that few would ever believe to be 
possible.
  Harry makes for a great example of how to take your life and make the 
most of it. He was born in a small cabin that offered few of life's 
comforts, but he didn't complain about it. He took what he was given in 
life and worked to make things better.
  As a young man, he served as the student body president of his high 
school and drew the notice of his teachers and his boxing coach. He 
attended Utah State University, and his next stop was George Washington 
University--my alma mater--where he worked to earn a law degree. To 
make that possible, Harry needed a job, and so he worked as a U.S. 
Capitol Police officer. Harry then returned home to Nevada and took up 
what would be his lifelong ambition, serving the people of his home 
State.
  It wasn't long before Harry had served in Nevada's State legislature 
and on the Nevada Gaming Commission. When the opportunity presented 
itself, he served in the House and then moved on to the Senate.
  He didn't win every election, but each disappointment only served to 
make him more determined to make a difference for the people of his 
State. His statistics are impressive--more than 30 years in Congress, 
serving under five Presidents, and being a part of both the minority 
and majority. And all the time, Harry has found ways to pursue and 
support agendas to benefit the people of Nevada.
  One of my favorite memories will always be the work Harry, and I did 
to enable the LDS Church to purchase a site that has a great deal of 
historic significance to them. The legislation had already passed the 
House, but was stuck in the Senate as some concerns were raised. Harry 
knew what he needed to do to make it possible for the bill to clear the 
Senate, and together, we figured out a way to make it happen. Today 
Martin's Cove is a popular site that draws large crowds every year.
  This is one of those moments most of us thought would never happen. 
It seemed like Harry Reid would always be in the Senate. He has not 
only left

[[Page 16389]]

a remarkable record, he also seems to be the last of an era. I have no 
doubt those who will take up his position in the years to come will do 
a good job and get results, but they will never do it ``like Harry 
did.'' He will forever stand as a unique mix of personality, character, 
history, and background.
  Diana joins in sending our best wishes to Harry and his wife, Landra. 
Together they have been quite a team and have accomplished a great 
deal. We didn't always agree on the issues, but one thing can be said: 
If you had a tough battle before you and you needed someone by your 
side who wouldn't give up until the battle was won, Harry was the kind 
of guy you would want in the fight. If you were on the other side of an 
issue, you would always prefer someone like Harry would not be opposing 
you.
  Thank you for your service, Harry. You have left an example that will 
inspire and encourage others in the years to come. Whenever faced with 
an impossible task, people will remember you and realize that with some 
creativity, determination and an understanding of the rules of the 
Senate, much can be done.


                        TRIBUTE TO BARBARA BOXER

  Mr. President, at the end of each Congress, the Senate takes a moment 
to express our appreciation and acknowledge the efforts of those 
Members who will be retiring in just a few weeks. This year one of our 
colleagues who will be returning home is Senator Barbara Boxer.
  Barbara will be leaving us after a career of over 30 years in the 
House and Senate. During her service, she has impressed all those with 
whom she has worked with the strength of her views, her courage, and 
her determination to fight for the things in which she truly believes. 
Regardless of the circumstances that drew her into each legislative 
battle, she has always held true to the principles that have guided her 
in her life.
  For Barbara, her early career work as a stockbroker soon found her 
heading to California with her husband after he had completed his work 
in law school. She then got interested in politics and became a strong 
voice for the political views of the people who resided in the area she 
now called home. Her constituents liked what they heard from Barbara--
and the way she expressed her views on the issues and proposals she 
wanted to work on.
  Her style of speaking soon became her trademark in Congress. She has 
a convincing way of presenting her case, and that is one reason why it 
was always good to be on her side. She calls it speaking ``extremely 
candid and straight from the shoulders, and not to be mealy-mouthed or 
waffle.'' Anyone who has had a chance to come to know her--or to tackle 
an issue either with her or opposed to her--knows how accurate that 
description is.
  Right after the tragedy of 9/11, I joined Barbara as ranking member 
of the subcommittee she chaired regarding terrorism financing. I was 
proud to join her in that work, and I have appreciated the significant 
role she has played on a number of highway bills, which are important 
to both of our home states.
  Over the years, there have been some other issues that we could 
discuss and work on with an eye towards compromise. For each of us, 
however, there were other issues that were of such importance to our 
constituents it would have been hard for either of us to move too far 
from the path that we had been following from our early days in 
politics.
  Barbara and I both have a strong touch of the West in our hearts that 
we express every day in everything we do. That is why I was not 
surprised when she mentioned as she spoke about her retirement that she 
felt that it was time for her to return home--as she said so well--``to 
the state I love so much, California.''
  Barbara, Diana joins me in sending our congratulations for your hard 
work and your dedication to your home State. You have left your mark 
here in Congress, and I think it is safe to say you will not be 
forgotten. Thanks again for your willingness to serve and work so hard 
for what you believe in. You have helped to encourage and inspire the 
next generation of leaders from your State. In that way and so many 
others, you have made a difference.


                          tribute to mark kirk

  Mr. President, when the current Congress is brought to a close with 
the banging of the gavel, several Members will be departing our Senate 
community. Whatever they will be doing after closing this chapter of 
their lives, we wish them well and share with them our great 
appreciation for their willingness to serve and make a difference over 
the years.
  Mark Kirk, one of our current senators from Illinois, has left a mark 
on the Congress that will not soon be forgotten. He has served with 
great distinction, and he has made a difference in the Senate.
  Mark's time in Washington began when the people of Illinois voted to 
send him to the House of Representatives. He represented their 
interests in that Chamber from 2001-2010. In 2010, Mark ran for and won 
an open Senate seat. When he was sworn in, he brought with him what had 
earned him the trust and support of the people back home throughout his 
years in the House--an independent streak and an open mind to 
everything that drew his interest and captured his attention.
  The statistics of the past 6 years bear that out. Whatever came 
before the Senate gave Mark reason to review each issue considering the 
best interests of the people of his state. He wasn't always found 
exclusively on one side of the aisle or the other when it came time to 
vote.
  During his years of service in the Senate, two issues that 
particularly drew his attention were Iran and the treatment of our 
Nation's veterans. Mark has been focused on Iran and what our Nation 
should be doing to ensure that Iran's threat to the Middle East and 
other nations is minimized. He has been tireless in keeping watch over 
their potential nuclear program. As chairman of the Appropriations 
Subcommittee on Military Construction and Veterans Affairs, Mark has 
focused on ensuring that those veterans who retired from duty with 
medical issues have received the care they needed to recover and live 
better, more healthful lives. This was an interest that stemmed from 
his service in the Navy Reserve from 1989-2013 and is yet another way 
for Mark to make a difference in the lives of those who had served our 
nation.
  Before I close, I must recognize the challenge Mark overcame by 
recovering from a stroke during his Senate service. It was a long and 
difficult road back to the Senate so he could again represent the 
people of his home State, but Mark persevered. All told, it took him a 
year before he was strong enough to return to Washington on a permanent 
basis.
  One moment I will always remember is the day he came back to the 
Senate, walking the steps with Vice President Joe Biden and West 
Virginia Senator Joe Manchin. The courage, determination and step by 
step success Mark made in achieving another difficult goal could not 
have been more clear to those of us who watched him climb the stairs.
  The stroke that affected him physically also had an impact on his 
personal outlook on life. When he was able, he wrote of his experience, 
``I was once a pessimist. I'm not that man anymore. And that change, 
brought about by misfortune, is the best thing that ever happened to 
me.''
  I have enjoyed the opportunity to come to know Mark over his 
Washington years, and I wish he were going to stay with us so we could 
continue to follow his life as he works on his goals, dreams, 
ambitions, and efforts to keep us safe.
  Mark, Diana joins me in sending our best wishes and our appreciation 
for your willingness to serve. You have a record of which you should be 
very proud--just as proud as we are of you. You leave having made a 
difference far beyond your years of service.


                        tribute to kelly ayotte

  Mr. President, at the end of each Congress, it is a tradition for the 
Senate to pause for a moment to acknowledge and express our 
appreciation for the service of each Senator who will

[[Page 16390]]

not be returning for the next session. One of those we will miss next 
year will be Kelly Ayotte of New Hampshire.
  During the past 6 years, those of us who had a chance to come to know 
and work with Kelly have been impressed with her dedication to the 
people of her home State, her involvement with the issues of concern to 
them, and her willingness to work with members on both sides of the 
aisle to find solutions to the problems and concerns of the people of 
New Hampshire and America.
  There were at least three key steps that brought Kelly to the Senate 
after she earned her law degree from Villanova. First, she spent a year 
clerking for the New Hampshire Supreme Court. Then she spent the next 
part of her career in private practice. The third step brought her into 
the State attorney general's office and then on to serve as New 
Hampshire's attorney general. When Senator Judd Gregg announced his 
retirement, Kelly knew the time was right for her to pursue another 
goal. She decided to run for the Senate.
  It wasn't easy, but those who doubted her underestimated Kelly's 
innate political sense and her ability to reach the people of New 
Hampshire. In the end she brought about a closely fought but well-
earned victory in the primary and a big win in the general election.
  Kelly came to Washington in 2010 and started working right away on a 
number of issues that she knew were a concern to the people back home. 
She made it clear that she would fight for what was best for the people 
of her home State and worked hard on national security, veterans 
issues, health care, and substance abuse. She has also been a tireless 
advocate and an outstanding partner for me on the Budget Committee.
  I am sad to see Kelly leave the Senate at the end of this year, but 
if her past is any indication of her future, I think she will make good 
use of her talents, abilities, background, knowledge, and experience in 
her future endeavors. I hope it is in some part of our government. 
There is no doubt that we need good people like Kelly to make this a 
better country for us all.
  I have a prediction to make about her future--we haven't seen the 
last of Kelly Ayotte. She has a lot more to give, and I think we are 
all looking forward to seeing it.
  Kelly, Diana joins me in sending our best wishes to you and your 
family, and our appreciation for your willingness to serve New 
Hampshire and the Nation. There are countless sayings about how 
politics isn't for anyone but the brave and the resilient. I think your 
experience, especially this past year, has shown that you are more than 
tough enough for any career challenge. Good luck in whatever you choose 
to do next. Clearly, you specialize in making the world a better place 
and that is a win/win for us all--especially our children and 
grandchildren.


                        tribute to david vitter

  Mr. President, each year at the end of the Congress, it has been a 
tradition for the Senate to pause for a moment to express our 
appreciation for the service of those Members who will be retiring. One 
of those who will be leaving this year is David Vitter.
  David will be a loss for my party's membership in the next Congress 
because he was a hard worker and we could always count on him for his 
support of our conservative positions. Simply put, he made the most of 
the terms he served and made an important difference on a number of 
issues.
  Over the years, David would study each bill in Committee and on the 
floor carefully to determine how those who would fall under its 
provisions would be affected. He had a good sense of what needed to be 
strengthened or tweaked to make legislation more effective and less 
costly. The people of Louisiana and the Nation have had a friend in 
him, and they greatly appreciated how well he looked out for them.
  One issue that drew David's and my attention was Obamacare. We both 
had a lot of concerns about how it would work and whether or not it 
would provide the kind of care its supporters promised. That is one of 
the reasons why I hate to see him leave. We have a lot of work to do on 
health care, and David would have been someone who could help with the 
heavy lifting.
  David also chaired the Small Business Committee in this Congress and 
was able to put forward some ideas to preserve jobs and businesses. I 
have been proud to work with him in that effort.
  In short, Senator Vitter has had a remarkable career and has done his 
best to serve the people of his State and champion the issues that were 
of importance to them.
  Now David has decided to end his Senate career and take on some new 
challenges. I have no doubt that his skills and his background will 
lead him down a new path to help the people of Louisiana. I wish him 
well and look forward to seeing what he will do.
  David, Diana joins me in sending our best wishes and our appreciation 
for your service, as well as that of your family. Together with Wendy, 
you were able to make a difference that will last for a long time in 
the Senate and in Louisiana. It is good to know you won't be far away 
and we can get in touch with you whenever we need your advice.


                  tribute to vice president joe biden

  Mr. President, today I wish to recognize the service of a former 
colleague and our current Vice President, Joe Biden.
  Joe was born in Pennsylvania, but moved with his family to Delaware 
when he was 13. He left Delaware for brief stints at St. Helena School 
and Syracuse University Law School, but he has always returned to 
Delaware, including the daily trips he made home during his Senate 
career and the regular trips he makes home to this day.
  Because of his devotion to Delaware, Joe quickly got his start in 
politics, first on the New Castle County Council and then in the U.S. 
Senate, where he became the fifth-youngest U.S. Senator in history in 
1972. He also has the distinction of being Delaware's longest serving 
Senator.
  I worked with Joe on many different issues during his time in the 
Senate and served on the Foreign Relations Committee when he was our 
Chairman. Joe is known as a foreign affairs expert, and he has many 
reasons to be proud of the work he's done in that area. One of those 
things that we worked on together was the President's Emergency Plan 
for AIDS Relief.
  I remember being at the 2003 State of the Union speech when President 
Bush said, ``We're going to put $15 billion into an AIDS effort.'' That 
shocked all of us who were there. It was a lot of money. But we worked 
together to develop a bill that passed the House and Senate 
unanimously.
  Joe managed the floor when we reauthorized that program in 2008, and 
we worked with Senators Coburn, Burr, and Lugar to develop that 
reauthorization. At the time, Joe suggested historians will regard 
PEPFAR as President Bush's ``single finest hour,'' and I tend to agree. 
A few years ago, I visited the Kasisi Orphanage in Zambia. We were told 
that before PEPFAR, they had to bury 18 kids a month that died of AIDS, 
but because of PEPFAR, they got that down to one a month. I know Joe 
shares my pride in the difference that program is making.
  We were all a little sad to see Joe move to the White House in 2009, 
when he became our 47th Vice President. Lucky for us, he has been able 
to keep his ties to the Senate in his role as President of this body, 
and I think he has been one of our best partners in the administration.
  All of us were glad to be able to honor  Joe and his son, Beau Biden, 
by naming the cancer section of 21st Century Cures Act after Beau. I 
expect Joe will continue to be a voice for ending cancer, and I hope to 
work with him towards that cause.
  Joe, Diana and I send our best to you, Jill and your family. You have 
served the people of Delaware and the people of the United States with 
distinction.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine


                             Senior$afe Act

  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, at the end of a Congress, we all know how 
easy it is for just one Senator to block

[[Page 16391]]

a bill. I rise today to express my great disappointment that we have 
been unable to overcome objections from just one Senator from the other 
side of the aisle who is blocking the passage of legislation called the 
Senior$afe Act that is designed to help protect our seniors from 
financial fraud and exploitation. This is a bill I introduced with my 
colleague, Senator Claire McCaskill, as a result of extensive hearings 
and investigations that we have conducted in the Senate Aging 
Committee. A companion bill passed the House on a voice vote.
  Nationally, as many as 5 million seniors may be victims of financial 
abuse annually. Stopping this tsunami of fraud has been one of the top 
priorities of the Senate Aging Committee.
  In the many hearings we have held on this issue, what we found is 
that scammers seek to gain the trust and active cooperation of their 
victims, who are usually older Americans. Without that trust and 
cooperation, their schemes would fail. Unfortunately, seniors often do 
not see the red flags that signal that fraud is likely involved in 
these sophisticated schemes. Sometimes seniors are simply too nice, too 
trusting. In other sad cases, they may suffer from diminished capacity. 
But just as often, they miss these flags because the swindlers who prey 
upon them are extremely crafty and they know how to sound convincing. 
Any of us who have received these calls at home know how persuasive and 
persistent these con artists can be.
  Whatever the reason, a warning sign that can slip by a victim might 
trigger a second look by a financial services representative who is 
trained to spot common scams and who knows enough about a senior's 
habits to question a transaction that just doesn't look right. In our 
work on the Senate Aging Committee, we have heard of so many cases 
where an alert bank teller or credit union employee on the frontlines 
has stopped a financial fraud in its tracks, saving seniors untold 
thousands of dollars. In fact, the Government Accountability Office 
estimates that our seniors lose an astonishing $2.9 billion a year to 
this kind of fraud, and that is probably the tip of the iceberg because 
many times this fraud is never reported.
  I will give an example. Earlier this year, an attorney in the small 
coastal city of Belfast, ME, was sentenced to 30 months in prison for 
bilking two older female clients out of nearly half a million dollars 
over the course of several years. The lawyer's brazen theft was 
uncovered when a local bank teller noticed that he was writing large 
checks to himself from his clients' accounts. When confronted by 
authorities, he offered excuses that the prosecutor later described as 
``breathtaking.'' For example, he put one of his clients into a nursing 
home to recover from a temporary medical condition and then managed to 
keep her there for 4 years until the theft of her funds came to light. 
In the meantime, he submitted bills for services, sometimes totaling 
$20,000 a month, including charging her $250 per hour for 6 to 7 hours 
to check on her house, which was a 1-minute drive from his office.
  Financial institutions are in a critical position to check these 
fraudsters. If properly trained, employees can be the first line of 
defense. Regrettably, certain laws can inadvertently impede efforts to 
protect seniors because financial institutions that report suspected 
fraud can be exposed to lawsuits. Our bill, the Senior$afe Act, 
encourages financial institutions to train their employees and shields 
them from lawsuits for making good-faith, reasonable reports of 
potential fraud to the proper authorities.
  As Jaye Martin, the head of Maine Legal Services for the Elderly, put 
it in a letter describing her support for the Collins-McCaskill bill, 
``In a landscape that includes family members who often wish to keep 
exploitation from coming to light because they are perpetrating the 
exploitation, the risk of facing potential nuisance or false complaints 
over privacy violations is all too real.''
  This is a barrier that must be removed so that financial institutions 
will act immediately to make a report to the proper authorities upon 
forming a reasonable belief that exploitation is occurring. These 
professionals are on the frontlines in the fight against elder 
financial exploitation and are often the only ones in a position to 
stop the exploitation before it is too late.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record 
the full letter from Ms. Martin immediately following my remarks.
  Our bipartisan bill is based on the State of Maine's innovative 
Senior$afe Program. It has been a collaborative effort by my State's 
regulators, financial institutions, and legal organizations to educate 
bank and credit union employees on how to identify and help stop the 
exploitation of older Mainers. It was pioneered by Maine's securities 
administrator, Judith Shaw, and it has led to a significant increase in 
reports of suspected senior financial exploitation and fraud.
  The Maine program also serves as a template for model legislation 
developed for adoption by the North American Securities Administrators 
Administration, which is known as NASAA. The Senior$afe Act and this 
model State legislation are complementary efforts, and I am very 
pleased that the association of securities administrators has endorsed 
our bill.
  As I mentioned, the House Financial Services Committee approved our 
companion bill by a vote of 59 to 0 in June, and it passed the House by 
a voice vote in July. The Senate bill is sponsored by a quarter of the 
Members of this body, balanced nearly evenly on both sides of the 
aisle, and has the support of a wide range of stakeholders looking out 
for the interests of consumers, including the securities administrators 
whom I have already mentioned, the Conference of State Bank 
Supervisors, and the National Association of Insurance Commissioners. 
These are all regulators who are looking out for our consumers.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record 
these letters of endorsement immediately following my remarks.
  Under our bill, liability protections are only provided for good-
faith, reasonable reports of suspected fraud.
  The legal obstacles facing financial institutions that report this 
kind of suspected fraud and abuse are not limited to just privacy laws 
because these institutions have also been threatened with claims such 
as breach of contract, bad faith, slander, unfair practices, and even 
harassment. As one compliance officer for one of my community banks put 
it, without this kind of immunity for good-faith reporting, small 
community banks will face the ``freeze effect'' and won't make reports 
that could help to protect our seniors; thus, ``the effectiveness of 
Senior$afe will be undercut.''
  I just cannot believe we cannot clear this commonsense bill for the 
President's signature when it would help so many seniors avoid becoming 
the victims of financial fraud and abuse, when it is supported by 
groups like Maine Legal Services for the Elderly, when it has won the 
support of national organizations of State securities administrators, 
State insurance commissioners, State bank regulators, when it would 
make such a difference.
  Sadly, because of the objections of just one Senator on the other 
side of the aisle, we are stymied. That means we will have to start all 
over again next year. Much needed help for our seniors--that could help 
them avoid being swindled out of what GAO estimates is almost $3 
billion a year--will have to wait for another day. I just don't 
understand it.
  I have made many good-faith efforts in this regard, but regretfully, 
because we are at the end of the session, we don't have the time to go 
through all of the procedural steps that would be needed to pass this 
bill, which I am sure, given its broad bipartisan support, would pass 
overwhelmingly. I hope the Senator in question will reconsider and 
allow us to send this important bill to the President for his 
signature.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:


[[Page 16392]]


         Legal Services for the Elderly, Free Legal Help for 
           Maine's Seniors,
                                                 December 5, 2016.
     Re Senior$afe (S. 2216).

     Senator Susan Collins,
     Chair, Senate Special Committee on Aging, Dirksen Senate 
         Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Collins: I want to thank you for inviting me 
     to speak with the Senate Special Committee on Aging about the 
     serious problem of financial exploitation of seniors by 
     guardians and others in a position of power. I also want to 
     thank you for your leadership in working to ensure there is 
     training of financial institution employees in reporting 
     elder abuse and an improvement in the timely reporting of 
     financial exploitation when it is suspected through passage 
     of the Senior$afe Act. I strongly support this legislation 
     that is based upon work done here in Maine.
       I served for over two years on the working group that 
     developed Maine's Senior$afe training program for financial 
     institution managers and employees. It is a voluntary 
     training program. Through that work I came to fully 
     appreciate the very real concerns of the financial industry 
     regarding the consequences of violating, or being perceived 
     as violating, the broad range of state and federal privacy 
     laws that apply to their industry. I also came to appreciate 
     that absent broad immunity for reporting of suspected 
     financial exploitation, privacy regulations would continue to 
     be a barrier to good faith reporting of suspected financial 
     exploitation. In a landscape that includes family members who 
     often wish to keep exploitation from coming to light because 
     they are perpetrating the exploitation, the risk of facing 
     potential nuisance or false complaints over privacy 
     violations is all too real.
       This is a barrier that must be removed so that financial 
     institution employees will act immediately to make a report 
     to the proper authorities upon forming a reasonable belief 
     that exploitation is occurring. These professionals are on 
     the front lines in the light against elder financial 
     exploitation and are often the only ones in a position to 
     stop exploitation before it is too late.
       I want to add that tying the grant of immunity to required 
     training for not just supervisors, compliance officers, and 
     legal advisors, but to all who come in contact with seniors 
     as a part of their regular duties, will have the direct 
     result of bringing more cases of exploitation to the timely 
     attention of the proper authorities because it will 
     significantly increase the knowledge and awareness in the 
     industry of the red flags for elder abuse. In Maine, where 
     our training program is entirely voluntary and carries no 
     legal status or benefit, we have already seen what a 
     difference training can make.
       Senior$afe is a much needed step in the fight against 
     financial exploitation of seniors and there is no doubt it 
     will make our nation's seniors safer. I thank you again for 
     your leadership in this important area.
           Sincerely,
                                                   Jaye L. Martin,
     Executive Director.
                                  ____

                                         North American Securities


                             Administrators Association, Inc.,

                                 Washington, DC, October 27, 2015.
     Re the Senior$afe Act of 2015.

     Senator Susan Collins,
     Chairman, Senate Special Committee on Aging, Dirksen Senate 
         Office Building, Washington, DC.
     Senator Claire McCaskill,
     Ranking Member, Senate Special Committee on Aging, Dirksen 
         Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Collins and Ranking Member McCaskill: On 
     behalf of the North American Securities Administrators 
     Association (``NASAA''), I'm writing to express strong 
     support for your work to better protect vulnerable adults 
     from financial exploitation through the introduction of the 
     Senior$afe Act of 2015. Your legislation will better protect 
     seniors by increasing the likelihood that financial 
     exploitation targeting the elderly will be identified by 
     financial services professionals, and by removing barriers 
     that might otherwise frustrate the reporting of such 
     exploitation to state securities regulators and other 
     appropriate governmental authorities.
       Senior financial exploitation is a difficult but critical 
     policy challenge. Many in our elderly population are 
     vulnerable due to social isolation and distance from family, 
     caregiver, and other support networks. Indeed, evidence 
     suggests that as many as one out of every five citizens over 
     the age of 65 has been victimized by a financial fraud. To be 
     successful in combating senior financial exploitation, state 
     and federal policymakers must come together to weave a new 
     safety net for our elderly, breaking down barriers to 
     identify those who are best positioned to identify red flags 
     early on and to encourage reporting and referrals to 
     appropriate local, county, state, and federal agencies, 
     including law enforcement.
       As you know, state securities regulators, working within 
     the framework of NASAA, are in the late-stages of our own 
     concerted effort to bolster protections for elderly investors 
     at risk of exploitation, including through the development of 
     model legislation to be enacted by states to promote 
     reporting of suspected exploitation. While the approaches 
     contemplated by the recently announced NASAA model 
     legislation and the Senior$afe Act differ in some respects, 
     they are complementary efforts, both undertaken with the 
     shared goal of protecting seniors by increasing the detection 
     and reporting of elderly financial exploitation.
       The Senior$afe Act consists of several essential features. 
     First, to promote and encourage reporting of suspected 
     elderly financial exploitation by financial services 
     professionals, who are positioned to identify and report 
     ``red flags'' of potential exploitation, the bill would 
     incentivize financial services employees to report any 
     suspected exploitation by making them immune from any civil 
     or administrative liability arising from such a report, 
     provided that they exercised due care, and that they make 
     these reports in good faith. Second, in order to better 
     assure that financial services employees have the knowledge 
     and training they require to identify ``red flags'' 
     associated with financial exploitation, the bill would 
     require that, as a condition of receiving immunity, financial 
     institutions undertake to train certain personnel regarding 
     the identification and reporting of senior financial 
     exploitation as soon as practicable, or within one year. 
     Under the bill, employees who would be required to receive 
     such training as a condition of immunity include supervisory 
     personnel; employees who come into contact with a senior 
     citizen as a regular part of their duties; and employees who 
     review or approve the financial documents, records, or 
     transactions of senior citizens as a part of their regular 
     duties.
       The benefits of the types of reporting that the Senior$afe 
     Act aims to facilitate and encourage are far-reaching. 
     Elderly Americans stand to benefit directly from such 
     reporting, because early detection and reporting can minimize 
     their financial losses from exploitation, and because 
     improved protection of their finances ultimately helps 
     preserve their financial independence and their personal 
     autonomy. Financial institutions stand to benefit, as well, 
     through preservation of their reputation, increased community 
     recognition, increased employee satisfaction, and decreased 
     uninsured losses.
       In conclusion, state securities regulators congratulate you 
     for introducing the Senior$afe Act of 2015. We share and 
     support the goals of this legislation, and look forward to 
     working closely with you as the legislation is considered by 
     the Senate.
           Sincerely,

                                               Judith M. Shaw,

                                         NASAA President and Maine
     Securities Administrator.
                                  ____

                                             NAIC & The Center for


                                Insurance Policy and Research,

                                               September 14, 2016.
     Re Senior Safe Act.

     Chairman Susan M. Collins,
     U.S. Senate Special Committee on Aging, Dirksen Senate Office 
         Building, Washington, DC.
     Ranking Member Claire McCaskill,
     U.S. Senate Special Committee on Aging, Hart Senate Office 
         Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Collins and Ranking Member McCaskill: On 
     behalf of the National Association of Insurance Commissioners 
     (NAIC), which represents the chief insurance regulators from 
     the 50 states, the District of Columbia, and five U.S. 
     territories, we write to express our support for the Senior 
     $afe Act and applaud you for your leadership to increase 
     identification and reporting of suspected senior financial 
     exploitation.
       It is estimated that older adults in our country lose $2.9 
     billion annually from financial exploitation, and these 
     losses can result in a diminished quality of life for those 
     who fall victim to such exploitation. State insurance 
     regulators share your commitment to protecting seniors from 
     financial exploitation. State and federal officials entrusted 
     with the responsibility of protecting consumers must remain 
     vigilant in their oversight. That is why a key component of 
     the NAIC's Retirement Security Initiative is ensuring 
     consumers have clarity and transparency into the insurance 
     products they are being offered, that the products are 
     suitable for their needs, and that bad actors do not 
     undermine efforts to address lifetime income and retirement 
     security challenges. We look forward to continuing to work 
     with you and your committee on these important issues.
       Thank you again for your efforts to combat financial 
     exploitation of seniors.
           Sincerely,
     John M. Huff,
       NAIC President, Director, Missouri Department of Insurance, 
     Financial Institutions and Professional Registration.

[[Page 16393]]


     Theodore K. Nickel,
       NAIC President-Elect, Commissioner, Wisconsin Department of 
     Insurance.
     Julie Mix McPeak,
       NAIC Vice President, Commissioner, Tennessee Department of 
     Commerce and Insurance.
     Eric A. Cioppa,
       NAIC Secretary-Treasurer, Superintendent, Maine Department 
     of Professional and Financial Regulation, Bureau of 
     Insurance.
                                  ____

                                               Conference of State


                                             Bank Supervisors,

                                                   April 29, 2016.
     Senator Susan Collins,
     Chairwoman, Senate Special Committee on Aging, Dirksen Senate 
         Office Building, Washington, DC.
     Senator Claire McCaskill,
     Ranking Member, Senate Special Committee on Aging, Dirksen 
         Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairwoman Collins and Ranking Member McCaskill: On 
     behalf of the Conference of State Bank Supervisors (CSBS), I 
     write to express strong support for S. 2216, the Senior$afe 
     Act of 2015. State regulators are committed to combatting 
     financial abuse of elderly residents and believe that S. 2216 
     recognizes the contribution of states while empowering 
     institutions to reduce financial exploitation of the elderly.
       State regulators supervise a diverse credit ecosystem, are 
     locally-focused, and have a unique insight on the 
     consequences of abusive practices in their communities. State 
     banking regulators supervise approximately 4,850 state-
     chartered depository institutions, representing over 75% of 
     our nation's banks. Additionally, most state banking 
     departments regulate a variety of non-bank financial services 
     providers, including mortgage lenders.
       Since the 1980s, several states have enacted laws to 
     address the abuse, neglect, and financial exploitation of 
     their elderly residents. These state laws provide immunity 
     for financial service professionals to report abuse in good 
     faith, contain penalties for failing to report or making 
     false reports of elder abuse, and combat power of attorney 
     abuse. S. 2216 recognizes the important work of states and 
     creates a consumer protection floor upon which states can 
     build.
       Financial services professionals are in a position of trust 
     and have a unique window into the financial condition of 
     seniors. Their expertise and vantage point should be 
     leveraged to forcefully combat the growing epidemic of elder 
     abuse.
       The Senior$afe Act incentivizes financial services 
     employees to report any suspected exploitation by making them 
     immune from any civil or administrative liability arising 
     from such a report, provided they exercised due care and 
     reported in good faith. Additionally, to ensure financial 
     services personnel have the requisite expertise, the bill 
     requires, as a condition of receiving immunity, that 
     financial institutions train key personnel regarding the 
     identification and reporting of senior financial exploitation 
     as soon as practicable.
       Early detection is key to combatting elder financial abuse. 
     Not only can it minimize losses, but it may be able to 
     prevent abuses from occurring in the first place. Moreover, 
     this bill can deepen the involvement of financial 
     institutions in their community, enhance the training of 
     financial services personnel, and reduce insured losses.
       In sum, CSBS strongly supports S. 2216 and looks forward to 
     working with you as the Senate considers this legislation.
           Sincerely,
                                                     John W. Ryan,
                                                President and CEO.

  Ms. COLLINS. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, Senator Leahy and I are on the floor for 
the same issue. I defer to Senator Leahy if he prefers to go first.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.


                      EB-5 Regional Center Program

  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I have been here on the floor before, 
joined by Senator Grassley, to share my frustration with the EB-5 
Regional Center Program. Senator Grassley and I have been working for 
years to improve this flawed program that is set to expire tomorrow, 
but, once again, unfortunately, the congressional leadership on the 
other side has rejected our bipartisan reforms and the program will be 
extended in the continuing resolution.
  We have done this in a way, as has been pointed out, as a Republican 
and as a Democrat--two of the most senior Members of this body--who 
have introduced real reforms, but time and again leadership has caved 
behind closed doors to narrow corporate interests. I believe that is a 
serious mistake.
  The EB-5 Program I once championed seems like a distant memory. The 
program was designed to bring jobs to underserved rural and distressed 
urban communities. For some time, it did just that. Communities in 
Vermont, like Warren and Vergennes, once used EB-5 to create and save 
jobs during difficult economic times, but that is EB-5 of yesterday.
  Today EB-5 is mired in fraud and abuse. It suffers from obvious and 
outrageous flaws. It is a magnet for fraud, security violations are 
rampant, and the incentives Congress created to promote investment and 
create jobs in rural and high unemployment areas--the sole reason I 
championed the program--have been rendered obsolete through economic 
gerrymandering.
  Only 3 percent of EB-5 investors now invest in rural areas--3 
percent. The distinguished senior Senator from Iowa and I understand 
what a rural area is, and they are not being served. Less than 10 
percent invest in true high unemployment areas. Almost every other EB-5 
project uses gerrymandering to qualify as distressed, despite many 
being located in the most affluent areas of the country. The fact that 
a luxury hotel in Beverly Hills can use gerrymandering to claim it is 
located in a distressed community is troubling. Beverly Hills is not 
rural Iowa or rural Vermont, but the fact that this type of abuse now 
represents almost 90 percent of the entire EB-5 Program is appalling.
  Anyone who maintains that today's EB-5 Program is about creating jobs 
is either a lobbyist for the real estate industry or is simply not 
paying attention. An untold number of the luxury developments that now 
dominate EB-5 would be pursued even if you did not have EB-5 financing. 
Financing provided through EB-5 represents a small portion of the 
capital stack. To claim that EB-5 is responsible for all of these jobs 
is a farce. EB-5 merely allows developers to replace their conventional 
financing with dirt cheap capital subsidized by the sale of U.S. visas.
  It is not just exploited by wealthy American developers. Chinese 
developers, and even the Chinese Government itself, are now exploiting 
the EB-5 subsidy. That is beyond troubling when a foreign government is 
permitted to earn tens of millions of dollars through the sale of U.S. 
visas.
  The proposal I developed with Senator Grassley would address this. It 
would require background checks. It would require third-party oversight 
of funds. It would create protections for defrauded investors. It would 
ban foreign government ownership of an EB-5 company. It would end 
gerrymandering and provide modest incentives to direct a small portion 
of investment to underserved areas--just 15 percent to both rural and 
urban poor communities--but even this was too much for some developers 
and some lobbyists.
  Gluttonous, shortsighted corporate greed blocked these critical 
reforms, greed that was given a voice by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. 
Unfortunately, the leadership has allowed a couple of powerful 
developers to exploit this program's flaws to derail critical reforms. 
I find it shameful that the worst abusers of this program have been 
given, by some in Congress, veto power over its reform.
  I commend Secretary Johnson and his efforts to improve EB-5. I 
commend his efforts to change the rules to address fraud, inadequate 
investment levels, and the abuse of development incentives.
  I will work with the chairmen of the Senate and House Judiciary 
Committees and the next Secretary of Homeland Security to get these 
reforms implemented and enforced, but the EB-5 regional Senate program 
no longer serves the American people's interests. It certainly does not 
serve the rural and urban poor communities as Congress intended.
  Next year, I will be the vice chairman of the Appropriations 
Committee, and I will continue to press for broad bipartisan reform. I 
know Senator Grassley and Senator Feinstein, the

[[Page 16394]]

incoming ranking member of the Judiciary Committee, will not sit idly 
by either.
  If EB-5 cannot be reformed due to the paralysis of leadership, it is 
very simple. If it cannot be reformed, then let us end EB-5.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I heard my friend and colleague Senator 
Leahy express his opposition, and opposition that I share, to the EB-5 
Regional Center Program. I am here for the same purpose, to express the 
same opposition to the EB-5 Regional Center Program that was extended 
without reforms. One year ago, we made similar statements. I could 
easily read the same statement I gave at that time and it would be just 
as relevant today. We are very disappointed that reforms were not 
included in the continuing resolution, which simply extended this very 
flawed immigration program.
  The EB-5 Regional Center Program has been plagued by fraud and abuse. 
It poses significant national security risks. There are serious 
allegations that the program may be facilitating terrorist travel, 
economic espionage, money laundering, and investment fraud. Yet 
considering all of those things, the continuing resolution before us 
fails to include much needed reforms.
  So after a year, we have yet another missed opportunity. The chairs 
and ranking members of the House and Senate Judiciary Committees have 
agreed on a package of reforms. We have worked in a bipartisan and 
bicameral fashion. We have agreed--all four of us--on every aspect. We 
instituted compliance measures, we instituted background checks, and we 
instituted transparency provisions. We made sure rural and distressed 
urban areas benefited from the program, as Congress already intended 
and as Senator Leahy very clearly laid out the problems.
  Despite the bipartisan support, not a single one of our 
recommendations will be implemented. Instead of reforming the program, 
we will have the status quo. The status quo means the following:
  Investments can be spent before business plans are approved.
  Regional Center operators can charge excessive fees of foreign 
nationals in addition to their required investments.
  None of the jobs created have to be ``direct'' or verifiable jobs, 
but rather they are ``indirect'' and based on estimates, not knowing 
for sure if there are jobs created or based upon economic modeling--
again, not knowing for sure if jobs are created.
  Investment funds are not adequately vetted.
  Gifts and loans from anyone are acceptable sources of funds from 
foreign nationals.
  There is no prohibition against foreign governments owning and 
operating regional centers or projects.
  Regional centers can be rented or sold without government oversight 
or approval.
  Regional centers don't have to certify that they comply with 
securities laws. There is no set of sanctions for any violations--in 
other words, no recourse for the bad actors.
  There are no required background checks on anyone associated with 
these regional centers. The investment level is lower than Congress 
ever intended.
  Gerrymandering continues, and rural and urban distressed areas then 
lose out.
  Site visits or even audits are not required.
  There is no transparency on how funds are spent, who is paid, and 
what investors are told about the projects they are investing in.
  The preferential treatment we have seen in the past is enabled 
without a strict code of conduct rules.
  Those are just some of the things that are wrong.
  The four of us on the two committees, in a bicameral and bipartisan 
way, tried to address awareness and have a process for dialogue leading 
to reform. My committee held two hearings this year. The House held 
one. Staff met with very interested stakeholders who asked for and we 
offered more concessions than we did last year. To top it off, we were 
ready to provide a 6-year reauthorization. This would have provided 
long-term stability for investors and regional centers.
  But let's talk about why this package was not acceptable to some, 
most notably, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which was the most rigid in 
not compromising. Here is a list of issues raised by this leading voice 
of business in opposition to our package.
  They want, in effect, one investment level. They don't want any 
meaningful discount for rural or urban distressed areas. Don't forget 
that this law was passed 20 years ago to help rural and high-
unemployment areas. That is the purpose of it.
  They don't want visas set aside for areas that Congress selected as 
targeted employment areas for fear that investors in affluent areas 
would have to wait slightly longer for a visa.
  They didn't want to incentivize foreign investors to fund 
manufacturing projects that create long-term, sustainable, and real 
jobs that this country desperately needs.
  They wanted to make it harder for rural areas to qualify at a 
discount investment level, even though it is common knowledge that 
small and rural communities have a harder time attracting capital.
  They wanted certifications and compliance measures to be delegated to 
the agency. They did not want Congress to dictate transparencies and 
reporting requirements.
  We must remember that our job is to legislate, not to delegate. 
Delegating authority to the executive branch on this program would 
result in more of the same, because even by the departments in charge, 
there is very little oversight and monitoring now, even if it might be 
required by law. But not enough of it is required by law. That is why 
they get away with all this stuff.
  The Chamber of Commerce didn't like a provision saying a foreign 
national had to be 18 years old to invest and obtain a green card 
through the program. They would like children as young as 14 to be able 
to make these major financial decisions and invest up to $1 million--a 
14-year-old, to do that.
  They wanted restrictions on where investor funds came from lifted. 
Our package limited a foreign national from taking out a questionable 
loan or taking gifts from unknown sources. One way to find out what is 
wrong is to follow the money. We wanted to be sure that those investing 
were doing so because they obtained funds lawfully. The U.S. Chamber of 
Commerce wanted no such restrictions.
  They wanted foreign governments and even sovereign wealth funds to 
own EB-5 projects. They wanted to delay rules saying foreign 
governments could not own or administer regional centers by requiring 
bureaucratic rulemaking. Despite the changes we made this year on this 
very strict provision, they continued to want to water it down in every 
negotiating session we had.
  They didn't want regional centers to have to consult with local 
officials about EB-5 projects to ensure that economic development 
efforts were coordinated.
  They wanted to do away with a requirement that a foreign investor 
would have to create at least one direct job before obtaining a green 
card. Now, here we have a situation where a program was instituted 25 
years ago to create jobs--particularly in rural America and high 
unemployment areas--and they don't even want the investors to show that 
they are going to create at least one job right now.
  Then they used economic modeling to show indirect jobs. Neither the 
existence of those jobs nor the location of those jobs can truly be 
verified. When you have the Federal Government setting up a program 
like this that is supposed to create jobs in rural areas and high 
unemployment areas, wouldn't you think there ought to be a way of 
showing that those jobs are actually created?
  They raise new concerns about provisions that have been discussed way 
back since last June, such as requiring regional centers to pay a fee 
to an enforcement and monitoring fund.
  They wanted a 3-day notification of a site visit by the agency to 
determine if

[[Page 16395]]

the regional center truly exists. Sure, tell the inspectors you are 
coming so you can get everything in order before the inspectors get 
there.
  They fought efforts to require transparency of how investor funds 
were used. Now, this is a major problem of the existing program. Nearly 
every story of fraud relates to how regional center operators use EB-5 
funds for their own personal gain and luxury.
  This program is meant to create jobs, not to help individuals in 
charge of the program have personal gain and, more importantly, even 
the luxury that might go with that.
  But the kicker in all of this is that these business interests insist 
on more visas and to make those visas even cheaper. They want Congress 
to increase immigration numbers through controversial recapture 
mechanisms or by exempting certain people from the annual cap. The pro-
EB-5 groups want more visas for an already faulty program, which makes 
more money and puts more money in their pockets.
  On top of that, they asked us to make the visas cheaper than it is 
even under current law. I, of course, refused to do that. I refuse to 
go below the $1 million level that has been in law since 1990. The 
demand for visas is there. There is no justification to further cheapen 
this program and the green cards that come with that program.
  We will have 5 months until we are faced with another reauthorization 
because that is how far this continuing resolution goes. In those 5 
months, I expect that proposed rules changing the investment level and 
stopping gerrymandering will be published by the end of the year by the 
Obama administration, and I will support those proposed rules. I will 
be asking the new Trump administration to keep those new regulations 
and build off them.
  In regard to the new administration coming in, they took a very 
strong position on various immigration issues. In taking that position, 
I would expect them to consider very closely the fraud and misuse of 
the EB-5 Program. When this administration sees things wrong with it 
and they correct those things that are wrong with it through 
regulation, those are regulations that should be backed up very solidly 
by the new administration coming in.
  Next year, we will have to start over again. So as we heard Senator 
Leahy speak about this--and we know his feelings and mine are very 
similar; I have already referred to the House Judiciary Committee--we 
will continue to work in a bipartisan and bicameral way to ensure this 
program.
  Now, I want to speak about the new ranking member, Senator Feinstein. 
I intend to continue this work as closely with her as I did with 
Ranking Member Leahy, and Ranking Member Leahy will still be involved 
in this process. I want to point out that she is not a fan of this 
program at all, and she has been very vocal about closing this program 
down because of all the fault we find with it, whether it is fraud, 
whether it is misuse of the program, whether it is possible terrorist 
activity taking advantage of it, or whatever it is for national 
security reasons--all of those. Some of these have been pointed out by 
law enforcement agencies at the Federal level.
  So I want everybody to know that change is coming. I have always 
wanted to reform the program, but I am not sure that the industry will 
ever come around. The leadership of this body and the other body could 
help by ending this program in a continuing resolution. Let it sunset, 
and let all these people come to the table with a more compromising 
point of view to correct everything that is wrong here. But the 
industry loves the status quo and, of course, they love the billions of 
dollars that pour into affluent areas. Consequently, the money is not 
directed where it was intended to in 1990, when this legislation was 
passed, which was to rural areas and high unemployment areas.
  I am not sure, with the attitude of the industry, that reforms are 
possible. So just leaning on Senator Feinstein a little bit and 
considering her point of view, it may be time to do away with the 
program completely.
  I said that same thing a year ago, and I repeat: Maybe we should 
spend our time, our resources, and our efforts in other programs that 
benefit the American people as opposed to benefiting the well-healed 
and the well-connected. Maybe it is time this program goes away.
  I yield the floor and thank Senator Leahy for his speaking on it.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida.


                         REMEMBERING JOHN GLENN

  Mr. NELSON. Mr. President, it is my sad duty to announce the passing 
of John Glenn.
  John Glenn was one of the original seven astronauts of this country. 
All of them were characterized as having the right stuff, and if you 
knew any of them, that was certainly true.
  John Glenn was not only a pioneering astronaut and a great Senator, 
he was a first-class gentleman as well as a devoted husband and father.
  He leaves behind Annie, his beloved, who always stood with him as he 
ventured into the unknown cosmos, and it was unknown because John was 
the first to go into orbit as an American. He paved the way for all the 
rest of us.
  At his passing, America is in the planning and the developing of the 
rockets that will take us, a human species, all the way to Mars. John 
Glenn was the pioneer. He was the one who paved the way.
  Thank you, Mr. President.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I was a little bit delayed getting to the 
floor this afternoon because I was in tears, literally, when I heard 
the news about John. I think of my last long conversation with him just 
a few weeks ago. I will speak more on the floor about him later.
  I came to the Senate with John Glenn. I enjoyed traveling with him, 
with the anonymity it gave me when people said: there is Colonel Glenn. 
It was not Senator Glenn, it was Colonel Glenn, even after having been 
sworn in. We traveled, he and Annie, Marcelle and I, all over the 
world, but the time I remember the most was the weekend we spent at our 
old farmhouse in Vermont because they wanted to see the foliage.
  We used a seaplane and went flying around, landing in little ponds; 
taking off, then landing in another one. We went to a trappers 
convention where everybody was saying, ``It is Colonel Glenn and some 
bald guy with him,'' and that was me, of course. We went there and then 
flew back to Montpelier where Marcelle and Annie had been traveling 
around. John landed the plane in a stiff crosswind. Of course, the 
pontoons did not help. He had to bring it in sideways. I did not worry. 
It was John Glenn. Then he turned to me with a big wink and said: I 
have never been so frightened flying anything in my life. I do not 
think John ever was frightened at anything, but my heart did stop.
  I will speak more about him on the floor, and I appreciate my friend 
from Iowa yielding so I could speak.
  John was one of the best people I ever served with. When I speak of 
what it was like coming here as a brand new Senator, every time I am 
asked about that, I talk about the fact that I came here and was sworn 
in with John Glenn.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, it is my understanding that I was going 
to go next. But my distinguished colleague from West Virginia has 
important visitors--miners, who help fuel our country. So I ask 
unanimous consent that after he is recognized, I be recognized 
immediately thereafter.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from West Virginia.


                         Miners Protection Act

  Mr. MANCHIN. Mr. President, let me say to my dear friend from New 
Jersey, I appreciate his support so much. He has been right with me 
from day one, basically for the working men and women of this country 
but, most importantly, for the miners who have given us the country we 
have had today.

[[Page 16396]]

  I have been doing this for quite some time now. It is nothing new. 
This is not new to anybody. This has not been sprung on somebody at the 
last minute, what we are fighting for and what we are trying to do.
  As of October, we had over 16,000 of our retired miners and a lot of 
elderly women--widows whose husbands have passed away--who were 
notified they would be losing their health care benefits December 31 of 
this year. We have been working for a permanent fix called the Miners 
Protection Act, and if that bill were brought to the floor today, it 
would pass. We have all of the Democratic caucus--all 46 of us--and we 
have at least 15 who have committed to voting for it from our 
Republican colleagues, but that is not to be. That is not going to 
happen.
  We have been working everything we can. We have gone through regular 
order. That means it has been to the Finance Committee. It has gone 
through and been debated and vetted, and it came out of there with an 
18-to-8 vote--very strong in a bipartisan way.
  Now what do we do? We are not going to get a vote on the floor. We 
thought, well, let's attach it. The Cures Act came over, and it is a 
health care act. It was germane to that bill, and it should fit in 
perfectly. They said, no, we can't put it in there.
  The only thing we have left is what we are doing now, a CR. This is 
something I have never done. I have been here 6 years and have never 
used this procedure to say: Wait a minute. If we don't stand for the 
people who have fought, worked, and died for us and basically given us 
the country we have--we have won two wars with the domestic energy that 
has been mined right here in America, an awful lot of it in West 
Virginia, I might add. We have the strongest country in the world. We 
are a superpower. That would never have happened. We would never have 
the military might we have today. We would never have the middle class 
we have. We just wouldn't have the quality of life we have in America 
if had not been for the domestic energy our miners have given us.
  What we are asking for and all they are saying is this is a promise 
that was made in 1946 that President Truman said: Listen, we are going 
to commit to you that every ton of coal mined from this day forward and 
the coal companies you work for, we are putting money aside to make 
sure you have lifetime benefits for health care and for your pension.
  These are not big, elaborate pension plans. They are very small. They 
are subsidies, if you will. The health care has been so very important 
to many people. This has been going on for quite some time, and we have 
been involved many times. Yes, the Federal Government has been involved 
to make sure the companies put that money aside so they would have 
their health care and their pensions.
  Then, lo and behold, Congress basically passed bankruptcy laws that 
let people walk away from their obligations through bankruptcy. Now the 
promises were made and the promises that were kept by Congress were 
done away with through the bankruptcy laws that were so lenient that 
people could declare bankruptcy and say: Listen, I am sorry, but we are 
just not going to fulfill that commitment. That legacy goes away. That 
is somebody else's problem.
  To fast forward to where we are today and why we have the problems we 
have, let me bring you up to speed with what we are dealing with. We 
have asked for the Miners Protection Act, which was the permanent 
health care fix and a permanent pension fix. These are for the 
retirees. We have another group of retirees here who have gone through 
bankruptcy and there was money set aside, about $47 million. That was 
supposed to run out in June. We were going to bring all of them 
together so we took care of everybody.
  Now, the bill they put in front of us that the House of 
Representatives has given us is horrendous and it is inhumane. They 
gave us a bill and said: Take it or leave it on the CR.
  Nobody wants to close this great institution, this government down--
not a person. You have to stand for something or surely to God, you 
will stand for nothing. That is where we find ourselves. They gave us a 
4-month extension.
  If your aunt or your mother were getting a notice in October that she 
would lose it in December--they want us now to say: OK. We are going to 
be so sympathetic, we will give you 4 more months, through April. That 
same person is now going to get another notification in January that 
she is going to lose it in April. On top of that, she will not even be 
able to meet her deductibles. So there is no insurance. There is 
nothing.
  You remember the money I said they set aside, $47 million, for the 
miners who basically have gone through a bankruptcy and lost their jobs 
and retired, they were going through June. Those same miners now are 
going to lose May and June--2 months. They are going to lose 2 months. 
There is going to be a $2 million surplus that goes back to Treasury.
  I had one woman call me. She said: Senator Manchin, I don't know, but 
back home where I come from, they call that thievery. She is absolutely 
correct. This is why we are so committed, and we are so dug in on this 
issue. It is a fairness. It is the right thing to do. All we have asked 
for is to take care of our miners' health care. We will come back and 
fight another day for pensions, but give us the health care that has 
been promised and committed time after time again.
  I have never seen anything this callous in my life, that we weren't 
willing to fulfill a promise we have made and the Federal Government 
put its stamp of approval on.
  For those who are saying it is inconvenient and the procedures I have 
been using and my other colleagues with me--I have had everybody, and I 
appreciate them so much. And for them to say: Hey, you have held up a 
lot of goods bills--yes, a lot of bills that I have worked on for a 
year or more I have held up, but if we can't pass forward on this and 
walk out of here basically knowing we did the right thing, what is our 
purpose for being here? Why do we come?
  We all talk. I have seen everybody's elections. All of our election 
advertisements, whether they be Democratic or Republican, are we are 
all for the middle class. We are all for the working class. We are 
going to make sure the working men and women really get a fair shake. 
They have been screwed and left behind so let's do it. OK. We are all 
for that. All of our advertising, our campaigns say that. We are 
committed to it. The only thing I am saying is now fulfill it. It is 
either put up or shut up. That is all.
  You have already told them, you have asked them to vote for you 
because of this reason. Now you have a chance to show them that is why 
you are here. I came here to do exactly what I told you I was going to 
do--fight for you, make sure you are treated fairly. We have pay-fors. 
This is not coming out of taxpayers' money. This is AML--abandoned mine 
lands. The abandoned mine land money comes from every ton of coal. 
There is a certain percentage of money from that coal that goes into a 
fund and that is put aside to do reclamation.
  Now, I have some of my Western States that don't have quite the 
reclamation we have had. In the Eastern part of the country, in West 
Virginia, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Southwestern Virginia, there is an awful 
lot of work to be done, and we do that work. We have done this for 
quite some time. We are saying: Listen, we are not denying you getting 
your money, but you shouldn't get first dibs on it and then hinder us 
from taking care of the responsibility we have to the miners who have 
been giving you the opportunity to live in this great country.
  That is really what it comes down to. I have been asking all of my 
colleagues--this is not a fight that is going to be damaging to 
anybody. This is the only time-sensitive issue we have before us. There 
is nothing else we have before us. All of the bills are on hold right 
now. Not one bill has time sensitivity. We can come back and do it 
again. We have no problems doing them over and over. We have been here 
a long time.

[[Page 16397]]

  This is the only one where the miners lose their health care--16,500 
lose it December 31. You show me anything else we have in here where 
someone is going to be that harmed at a time specific when we walk out 
of here. That is what this is about. To tell me they are going to give 
us 4 months and they are doing us a favor for 4 months, that is 
inhumane. How they did it and paid for it is a crime. It is awful. That 
is why we are standing here fighting, and that is why I am going to 
continue to fight.
  I think we have a purpose in life. If you have a purpose in life in 
public service, then serve the public. Don't come here to serve 
yourself. That is all people have asked for--do your job. You wonder 
why we have a low rating from the public, why they think so little of 
Congress. This is common sense. It is so easy for us to do. It is so 
easy for us to do. It is so easy for us to be able to say: Fine, we are 
going to fulfill this, and then we have a lot of other things we want 
to take care of.
  That is all we have asked for, and that is all we are asking for now. 
We can do the right thing between today and tomorrow. We truly can.
  Someone said the House has left. I am so sorry they were 
inconvenienced and had to leave so early to go home for Christmas. You 
go home and tell the people I live with, the people I was raised with, 
the people who have taken care of me: I am so sorry. We had to go home 
for Christmas. I am sorry you are losing your health care December 31. 
I didn't mean for that to happen, but you know I had to get home for 
Christmas.
  That doesn't play well where I come from. That is not a commitment, 
and that is not public service. I am so sorry. I hope I have haven't 
inconvenienced anybody. I hope I haven't made you feel uncomfortable. I 
hope I haven't held up a bill that you have been working on because I 
have held up all my bills. No one was left unscathed in this. All we 
are saying is, for Pete's sake, do the right thing; stand up for this. 
Stand up for the people who gave us what we have today.
  History said if you don't know where you come from, you sure don't 
know where you are going. If we are not going to stand up for the 
people who have given us the life we have, I am not sure where we are 
going. I know one thing. I go home and look them in the eye. I can say 
I am doing everything I can, and I am going to fight for you. I am 
willing to take whatever it takes, whatever medicine it takes here, 
however upset people get with me, however uncomfortable they may be. I 
am asking: Please, take care of the miners' health care. That is all 
right now. We will talk about the rest later.
  With that, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I came to the floor for a different 
purpose, but I do want to say to my friend and colleague from West 
Virginia and to those he is fighting for, Senator Manchin has been at 
this in the most constructive way possible, trying to prick the 
conscience of the Senate to do what is fundamentally right, to help 
those who help make the country great, help them at their greatest time 
of need--to simply be able to go to sleep at night not worried that you 
are one illness or one black lung away from dying.
  He has ceded time and time again, asking for regular order. I was 
very pleased to support Senator Manchin as a member of the Senate 
Finance Committee, where there was a markup and there was a strong 
vote, and members who were running for reelection got to go home and 
say we passed it in the Finance Committee. We will take care of it when 
we come back after the elections.
  Well, here we are, and now it is time to put your votes and insist on 
having the miners' health care taken care of. If I were a miner, I 
couldn't have anybody better fighting for me. I want those you have 
been fighting for to know you have been doing it for some time and 
tenaciously and graciously as well but, nonetheless, with conviction. I 
strongly support my colleague.


                              Immigration

  Mr. President, I rise, as I have many times before, to discuss the 
urgent need for the United States to have an immigration system that 
reflects our values as a nation of immigrants.
  Today, in my first floor speech on the subject since Donald Trump won 
the election, I am deeply troubled by the fear and panic I hear from 
our immigrant community, from our young immigrants known as DREAMers 
and their families to the workers in the field, to those in our 
restaurant kitchens and our homes.
  Their panic is justified and palpable because of the inflammatory 
remarks made by the President-elect on the campaign trail about 
immigrants. His campaign promises made it seem as if no immigrant was 
safe from deportation, even otherwise law-abiding, decent people who 
came to this country searching for the American dream for themselves 
and their children. The threat of deportation was heard loud and clear 
by over 744,000 young, law-abiding immigrants who are American in every 
way, except for a piece of paper.
  These DREAMers were brought to the United States, many as infants or 
toddlers, for reasons beyond their control or their knowledge. They 
grew up in America going to school. The only flag they have ever 
pledged allegiance to is that of the United States. The only national 
anthem they know is the ``Star-Spangled Banner.''
  The effects of deporting them or their families would be 
incomprehensible and destructive. The Deferred Action for Childhood 
Arrivals Program, or DACA, has been a tremendously successful program. 
It is something I fought for, to allow young men and women to come out 
of the shadows and step forward to register themselves with our 
government and make them right. DACA has allowed nearly 800,000 
undocumented youth who came to the United States as children to obtain 
temporary protection from deportation and a 2-year work permit that is 
renewable. First, they would have to register with the government by 
handing over their personal information and the information of their 
immediate families, pass a criminal background check, and pay nearly 
$500 in fees, and we said the information would be confidential and not 
used against them. Now their fears of deportation are justified.
  The DACA Program now has the potential of becoming a registry of 
millions of undocumented immigrants who are now exposed for seeking a 
better life for themselves and their kids. Let's think about this for a 
second. These kids came into this country without any notion that they 
were doing anything wrong. Many of them didn't even know they were 
undocumented until they tried, for example, to go to college or get a 
loan for school. We asked them to come out of the shadows, voluntarily 
turn over their information and the information of their immediate 
relatives in exchange for protection from deportation, a work permit, 
and a chance for a better life. As early as next year, once again 
through no fault of their own, these young immigrants and their 
families are at risk of losing it all. The human cost is too high to 
pay. It is a cost measured in the thousands of parents separated from 
their children who are deported, husbands and wives separated from 
their spouses, millions of families who are torn apart because of our 
broken immigration system.
  Among his many campaign promises, President-Elect Trump pledged to 
end the DACA Program. This means that DACA recipients, a group of 
individuals the U.S. Government has deemed as otherwise model citizens 
who pose absolutely no threat to our national security, would be at 
risk for deportation and could no longer continue working legally.
  We are here talking about children who have grown up in the United 
States and attended our schools. Many of them were the valedictorians, 
salutatorians, and in the top tier of their graduating classes. These 
are children who serve our communities and were given a chance to be 
fully integrated into the only country many of them have ever known.
  I have listened many times to my colleagues talk about the core of 
family values, and the essence of that core

[[Page 16398]]

is a family unit. I have heard that you don't subscribe the sins of the 
parents to the children, and yet those who are advocates of ending DACA 
would undo all of those things they have spoken to.
  If the DACA Program is dismantled, young immigrants will be stripped 
of the jobs, education, and forced back into the shadows of our 
society. In fact, the Center for American Progress finds that ending 
DACA would cost the United States $433 billion in gross domestic 
product over the next 10 years.
  Having said that, I am hoping that when President-Elect Trump said on 
election night, ``Now is the time for America to bind the wounds of 
division''--he later said in an interview that millions of undocumented 
immigrants are ``terrific people.'' I hope the next administration 
thinks long and hard about binding the wounds of division. A good start 
would be a clear and unequivocal message that there will be no mass 
deportation task force and that the DACA Program will continue, 
something the President-elect already alluded to this week in an 
interview with Time magazine, saying that ``we're going to work 
something out that's going to make people happy and proud . . . 
[DREAMers] got brought here at a very young age, they've worked here, 
they've gone to school here. Some were good students. Some have 
wonderful jobs. And they're in never-never land because they don't know 
what's going to happen.''
  It appears to me that hopefully we are getting to a place where there 
is universal respect and admiration for DREAMers. This acknowledgement 
offers a glimmer of hope for a productive way forward, and I hope that 
is the case.
  Let me close by saying the following: I do not intend to sacrifice 
one set of immigrants for another. Let me be clear about our Nation's 
immigrants. It is not just enough to say DREAMers are terrific people. 
Protecting a temporary program is not enough, although the panic and 
sense of urgency to protect these young immigrants is justified. It is 
not enough because the reality is that DREAMers do not exist in a 
vacuum. They have parents. They have loved ones who have instilled 
values and work ethic and supported them to pursue an education and 
reach their full potential to benefit our country. Their parents are 
also terrific people and so are so many other hard-working immigrants 
who have lived in this country for years, have obeyed the law, are not 
criminals, and have integrated themselves into the tapestry of American 
society. We know them. You have to be blind not to know them. They are 
sitting next to us in the pew in church. They attend parent-teacher 
conferences. They are our neighbors. They pick our crops. There isn't a 
person in this country who isn't beholden to an immigrant worker. They 
watch our kids. They open businesses. They perform back-breaking work--
work we can't get many Americans to do--to keep the gears of this 
economy turning.
  Immigration is not an easy problem to fix, but I think we came close 
in 2013, when the Senate came together to pass comprehensive 
immigration reform. I was part of that bipartisan Gang of 8 that 
produced a bill which passed with strong bipartisan support of nearly 
three-quarters of this Chamber. That bill is a strong model for 
reforming our immigration system as we look ahead to the Congress.
  The bill, S. 744, addressed the key pillars necessary for a 
functioning, legal immigration system. It addressed the 11 million 
undocumented so we can know who is here to pursue the American dream 
versus who is here to do it harm. It reformed the legal immigration for 
high- and low-skilled workers. It had strong family reunification 
provisions, it put DREAMers on a path to citizenship, and it included 
tough border security measures. The bill, S. 744, wasn't perfect, but 
it was a significant milestone in our Nation's efforts to truly reform 
our immigration system.
  We must remember what our economy and America needs. Our Nation will 
be stronger when there is an accountable path to citizenship for the 
undocumented living in the United States, our borders are secure, 
employers are held accountable for whom they hire, jobs are filled with 
qualified and documented workers who contribute to the economy, 
families are kept together, and we don't have downward pressures by an 
underground economy against the wages of all other Americans.
  With an immigration system as flawed as ours and with so many things 
still to fix, DACA has been a beacon of hope--one shining light leading 
the way toward fairness, justice, and a better life for so many young 
immigrants looking for a chance to succeed in America as Americans.
  Yes, abolishing it would be a tragic mistake for an administration 
seeking to unite what they helped divide. Let me be clear, as I have 
said all along, we cannot lose sight of our ultimate objective. The 
only real solution in the end is a permanent legislative solution that 
doesn't pick winners and losers amongst the most vulnerable in our 
society. That is why I am pleased to once again see a bipartisan 
coalition of voices begin to resurface so we can work toward a 
bipartisan moment to fix our immigration system once and for all 
because beyond stopping those who wish to turn the clock back on any 
progress we have made, we still need to implement a functioning legal 
immigration system for all. We need to make sure we don't take a giant 
step back and focus our Nation's resources against the most vulnerable, 
talented, and hardworking.
  I have always been and remain committed to solving this problem in a 
fair, comprehensive manner that reforms our immigration system, and I 
will continue to work with a bipartisan coalition of voices toward this 
goal. Our DREAMers, their parents, immigrant families, and our Nation 
deserve nothing less. Irrelevant of who occupies the White House, I 
will never stop fighting for those who, like my mother, came to this 
country in the last century to give their families a chance to 
contribute to America's exceptionalism in this century.
  With that, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Indiana.


                   Indiana's Bicentennial Celebration

  Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I am pleased to speak with Senator Donnelly 
about a momentous occasion for our beloved home State of Indiana--a 
celebration of our bicentennial.
  On December 11, 1816, President James Madison signed the Indiana 
Enabling Act, which allowed Indiana to be the 19th State to join the 
Union and require that Indiana's leaders draft the State constitution. 
In the two centuries since Indiana's admission to the Union, Indiana 
residents--we call ourselves Hoosiers--have accomplished extraordinary 
things.
  In 1840, William Henry Harrison became the first Hoosier to be 
elected President. In 1888, Benjamin Harrison, his grandson and fellow 
Hoosier, followed in his footsteps to the Presidency. Five Hoosiers 
have served our Nation as Vice President: Schuyler Colfax, Thomas 
Hendricks, Charles Fairbanks, Thomas Marshall, and Dan Quayle. Just a 
few short weeks ago, Americans elected Gov. Mike Pence to serve as our 
next Vice President. He will become the sixth Hoosier to serve in this 
role. We have a well-deserved reputation as the mother of Vice 
Presidents.
  As many of you know, when Dan Quayle was elected, George Herbert 
Walker Bush's Vice President, I was appointed to fill his vacant Senate 
seat. Vice President Quayle has been a close friend and source of 
advice to me throughout the years.
  When President Trump named Mike Pence to be his running mate, I knew 
Hoosiers would continue to have a strong impact on our country, 
providing guidance and leadership in one of the top elected offices in 
our land.
  I am honored to call both Dan Quayle and Mike Pence close friends and 
commemorate the great work they have done for the State of Indiana and 
have and will do for our Nation.
  We have had excellent Governors, Representatives, Senators, and 
others who have contributed significantly to this body, the Congress, 
and the Nation, and we are proud of that as Hoosiers.
  I keep using the name Hoosiers because we were misnamed Indianians,

[[Page 16399]]

which is hard to pronounce and awful hard to spell. We are Hoosiers. I 
could go into a long discourse on what Hoosiers means, but I will not 
take the Senate time to do that right now. Please contact my office and 
we will send you a full description of what a Hoosier is, but you will 
see two of them on the floor here today.
  Loyal public servants is not the only contribution our great State 
has made to the Nation. During the Civil War, over 200,000 Hoosiers 
answered the call to serve; although only one Civil War battle was 
fought in Indiana, more than 41,000 Hoosiers lost their lives and an 
estimated 50,000 were wounded.
  During World War II, nearly 10 percent of Indiana's population joined 
our Nation's Armed Forces. Those who stayed behind contributed greatly 
to the manufacturing boom required for the war effort, manufacturing 
nearly 5 percent of all weapons and equipment required for the war.
  Our State has continued that call to service to the military. We have 
for years and decades been one of the leading States providing per 
capita support to our Armed Forces.
  In addition to these accomplished Hoosiers whom I have named, the 
places and events that make Indiana unique are numerous. I just want to 
mention a few, and I apologize to those that we don't have to time to 
put in place here. But as Senator Donnelly and I know, a few months ago 
we commemorated the 100th running of the Indianapolis 500 on this 
Senate floor.
  Known as the ``World's Greatest Spectacle in Racing,'' the 
Indianapolis 500 is a great source of pride to Hoosiers throughout the 
State and throughout the country. Every year our race is an epic event 
as drivers jockey for position at speeds regularly surpassing 200 miles 
per hour. In addition to the ``Indy 500,'' the automotive industry has 
deep ties to Indiana.
  In 1896, the Haynes-Apperson Company opened its doors in Kokomo, IN, 
producing one of the very first automobile manufacturing sites in the 
entire United States. It operated until 1905. Its 1904 model seated two 
passengers and sold for $1,550 at the time.
  Now, you don't have to go too much farther than Kokomo, IN, to arrive 
in the city of Auburn, where the Cord Dusenberg and other popular cars 
were manufactured. Every year, the Cord Dusenberg festival, parade, and 
museum are open to people from around the world to see a magnificent 
parade of cars in that era in absolutely perfect shape.
  If you find yourself in Southern Indiana, take a minute to stop by 
the Lincoln Boyhood National Memorial in Spencer County. Abraham 
Lincoln may have been born in Kentucky, and he may have ended up in 
Illinois, but he was raised and shaped in Indiana.
  In addition to our landmarks, some of America's most famous buildings 
have been constructed using Indiana limestone. The Pentagon, the 
National Cathedral, the Lincoln Memorial, the U.S. Holocaust Memorial 
Museum, the Empire State Building in New York, and many more, all 
feature Indiana limestone quarried in south-central Indiana.
  Our State has been blessed with a climate of soil fit for all kinds 
of agricultural activities. God has blessed us with a climate and a 
soil fit for all kinds of agriculture activities.
  While corn and soybeans are our top commodities by value, Indiana 
produced $11.2 billion worth of agricultural products in 2012. This 
includes 41.5 million broiler chickens, 10.5 million hogs and pigs, 
numerous dairy products, and 37,000 acres of vegetables harvested for 
sale. The next time you head to the movie theatre, think of Indiana. 
Indiana produces more than 20 percent of the United States' popcorn 
supply, and a great deal is exported around the world.
  We are also a world leader in pharmaceuticals, biologics, and medical 
devices. Our medical device industry is the fifth largest in the United 
States, generating more than $10 billion in annual economic output. 
Hoosiers are truly working hard to provide healthier, longer, and more 
rewarding lives for all Americans. Not only does Indiana seek to enrich 
the quality of life of Hoosiers through its contributions to the 
medical manufacturing field, we also do this through our institutions 
of higher education.
  Hoosiers don't need to travel far to receive a high-quality 
education. We boast a rich variety of world-class colleges and 
universities, such as Indiana University, Perdue University, Butler 
University, Notre Dame University, Indiana State, Rose-Hulman, Trine, 
Grace, Manchester, Earlham, Evansville, Indiana Wesleyan, Valparaiso, 
and on and on we could go.
  I would be remiss if I were to neglect mentioning my own graduate 
school, the Indiana University Robert H. McKinney School of Law.
  This quality of education bleeds into the quality of coaching found 
in Hoosier schools. There is nothing quite like being in the stands 
during a Hoosier high school basketball game. The coaching quality that 
we have has produced all-stars in every facet of basketball, whether it 
be professional, college, high school, or elementary.
  There is nothing quite like being in the stands during Taylor 
University's Silent Night, where the fans pack the basketball stadium 
and stay completely silent until the home team scores their tenth 
point. Then the noise really starts and the game finishes with the fans 
signing singing ``Silent Night.''
  Through the years, so many Hoosier teams have proved to be formidable 
foes on the court and the field. We are the home of the Colts, the 
Pacers, the birthplace of Larry Bird, James Dean, and David Letterman. 
On and on I could go with that.
  But in addition to recognizing all that Indiana has contributed to 
our Nation over the past 200 years, I would like to add that one of our 
greatest contributions has been and will be always Hoosier hospitality. 
While at times our country is a more divided and complicated place, 
Hoosiers continue to demonstrate that kindness and a good meal can make 
the world a little better.
  It is an honor for me to commemorate this bicentennial for this great 
State of Indiana. I am honored to be able to do this with my fellow 
Senator Joe Donnelly from Indiana.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Indiana.
  Mr. DONNELLY. Mr. President, I rise today to join my colleague, Dan 
Coats, our senior Senator from Indiana, who is wrapping up his time in 
the Senate as of the next few weeks. What an extraordinary service he 
has provided to our Nation, to our State. We are incredibly grateful to 
Senator Coats for what he has done. I also want to celebrate Indiana's 
bicentennial. I want to reflect on the past two centuries of our 
State's rich history and the important contributions Hoosiers have made 
to our State and our Nation. For nearly a year now, in every corner and 
in every community of Indiana, from the biggest to the tiniest, we have 
been commemorating the storied history of our beloved Hoosier State.
  Together, we will culminate the celebration on Sunday, December 11, 
when Indiana turns 200 years old. Admitted to the Union in 1816, 
Indiana has developed and grown into the crossroads of America, a 
welcoming place, where businesses and families can grow and succeed.
  As Hoosiers, we take pride in putting in an honest day's work. We 
don't want a free lunch. We don't want a handout. We want the chance to 
work, to work a good job, to educate our children in good schools, to 
ensure that our kids have the tools to make a better life than we did--
the American dream, the Hoosier dream--and, eventually, after a life of 
hard work, to retire with dignity, to have a chance to go fishing in 
one of our lakes, to have a chance to be with our family in one of our 
extraordinary parks or a national forest.
  Indiana has a proud tradition of serving our country, and working to 
protect our Nation's security. Nearly 500,000 veterans and many 
servicemembers and military families call Indiana home. Our National 
Guard dates back to 1801, when we were still a Territory. Today, our 
National Guard is the fourth largest in all of the United States. 
Hoosiers have proudly served our country in all of our wars, in all of

[[Page 16400]]

our efforts to protect our Nation over the years.
  It is also home to Naval Support Activity Crane, the third largest 
naval installation in the world. I think we can take particular pride 
that in the middle of the country, about as far away as you can get 
from the Atlantic and the Pacific, we have the third largest naval base 
in the entire world. Our State is also home to Grissom Air Reserve Base 
in Kokomo, where the 434th Air Refueling Wing is based. The 122nd 
Fighter Wing is in Fort Wayne, and A-10s are training daily. As well, 
there is Camp Atterbury and the 181st Intelligence Wing based at Terre 
Haute Air National Guard Base.
  Throughout our 200-year history, Indiana's success has helped drive 
America's success. The backbone of our State has been built from our 
manufacturing and steel plants, our small businesses, and our farms. 
Hoosier farmers and those involved in agriculture know what it means to 
work hard and do their part. Our corn and soybean farmers, our pork 
producers, and our beef producers have helped to feed not just Indiana 
but our country and the world.
  Our dairy farmers have produced incredible products. On a hot summer 
night, some of the best ice cream in the world comes right between the 
Illinois border and the Ohio border, and the Michigan border and the 
Ohio River--that beautiful place we call home. In the cities and towns 
across Indiana, small businesses are the cornerstones of our 
communities.
  Indiana is home to nearly half a million small businesses, employing 
almost 1.2 million Hoosier workers. So many of those small businesses 
are in agriculture as well. We don't want to leave anybody out. There 
are the ag producers--so many--and the turkey producers, the chicken 
producers. If it grows, we make it. We feed the world every single day.
  Throughout our State's history, steel has been not just a major 
employer but also a source of pride for Hoosier communities. Hoosier 
steel serves as the foundation of buildings and bridges all across the 
United States. What Indiana makes the United States and the world 
takes. Still today, Indiana is the largest producer of steel in the 
United States.
  Speaking of construction, the limestone from Southern Indiana has 
traveled all over the world, from places like Yankee Stadium to 
buildings in other parts of the world, to buildings all across the 
Nation's Capital. Some of the most beautiful buildings you have ever 
seen are built from Indiana limestone and from Indiana products.
  Manufacturing is central to our economy. It contributes to roughly 30 
percent of Indiana's economic activity and economic growth. 
Manufacturing plays a larger role in our economy than it does in any 
other State in the Nation, and we are really, really good at it. 
Manufacturing employs 17 percent of our workforce, some of the most 
skilled workers in the world.
  Hoosier manufacturers and their workers build some of the most 
advanced, highest quality products in the world, from engines to RVs.
  Just down the road from my home in Granger, is Elkhart, the RV 
capital of the world. I know that the Presiding Officer has traveled a 
few miles in RVs as well, from one end of our State to the other. More 
than 80 percent of global RV production is based in Elkhart, and 
throughout the northeast region and the north-central region. So if you 
see an RV on the road, there is a really good chance it was built by 
hard-working Hoosier manufacturers. There is a real good chance your 
family is going to have an awesome time.
  We boast some of the best educational institutions in the world--as 
my colleague Senator Coats mentioned as he listed them off--attracting 
students, professors, and researchers from across Indiana, across our 
country, and across the world. Our colleges and universities provide an 
exceptional education to our students and lead the way in innovation 
and cutting-edge research.
  Not surprisingly, many know our State because of our sports heritage, 
particularly in auto racing and basketball. This year marked the 100th 
running of the ``Greatest Spectacle in Racing,'' the Indy 500. It is a 
special event unlike any other.
  We don't just showcase the best Indiana has to offer on the racetrack 
but also on the hardwood. Basketball has been part of Indiana's 
identity since the late 1890s. It remains king today. Our State has 
achieved great basketball success, including with history-making teams 
like the Flying Tigers of Crispus Attucks High School, who, in 1955, 
became the first all African-American high school athletic team in the 
country to win a State basketball title. Few things have defined our 
State's culture and fabric as much as basketball.
  As Senator Coats, the Presiding Officer, knows, John Wooden may be 
considered the father of all coaches in this country. He came from 
Indiana. As we reflect on our 200 years, we have so much to be proud 
of. As we look to the next 200 years, we know that through hard work 
and by working together, we can make our State's future even more 
prosperous because that is the American promise--that we work nonstop, 
that we work together, so that when we look at our kids and our 
grandkids, we can tell them and tell all of you: We are going to build 
a stronger, better Indiana. We are going to build a stronger, better 
America because that is the promise that we pass on from one generation 
to the other.
  To my friend, the senior Senator from Indiana, I wish to tell you 
what a pleasure it has been to serve with you, what a good friend you 
have been, and how lucky I am to have been your junior partner in this 
endeavor where we try to stand for America every single day.
  I yield back the remainder of my time.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Coats). The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Cassidy). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, as my two colleagues from Indiana 
leave--again, congratulations on their bicentennial.
  There are many great Hoosiers who have made their way to the State of 
Washington. One was a most beloved Mariner broadcaster named Dave 
Niehaus, who was from Evansville, IN. He was a great, great part of our 
sports history. Certainly, I should mention Dave Calabro, who was a 
Hoosier and another great announcer for our basketball team. We also 
have the great Bill Ruckelshaus, former EPA Director under President 
Nixon. He works on salmon issues and does other great things.
  Congratulations to those Hoosier Senators today.


                           Energy Legislation

  Mr. President, I come to the floor with my colleague Senator 
Murkowski of Alaska to talk about all the great work that was put into 
developing the Energy Policy Modernization Act. The Presiding Officer 
knows well how much work we put into that legislation.
  We are here today after many markups, many amendments, and what was 
an unbelievable Senate vote of 85 to 12, to urge our House colleagues 
to consider the conference report on this legislation before adjourning 
for the year. There are so many important provisions in this 
legislation that should be enacted.
  We reached an agreement to mark the National Park Service's 100th 
birthday by making an investment in our national parks. In response to 
requests from 47 Senators, the bill protects hundreds of thousands of 
acres of land.
  We were also able to reach agreements on important issues such as 
water resources, providing and securing funding for fighting forest 
fires, and making sure that communities that are at risk of wildfires 
get the attention they so deserve. Having lost seven individuals 
fighting wildfires over the last decade and a half, I can say, from the 
State of Washington's perspective, it is essential that we provide the 
communities the resources

[[Page 16401]]

they need to fight fires. We also included a sportsmen's bill that will 
help hunters and fishers.
  We were also able to reach agreement on numerous energy provisions. 
For instance, the legislation bolsters our energy security against 
cyber attacks. We improve the Department of Energy's capabilities to 
protect the grid. We are not just talking about hardening some of our 
physical infrastructure such as hydro power projects, but actually the 
work that it takes to make the grid more resilient from hacking. We 
also reached agreement on provisions to develop the workforce that will 
be needed to fill the 1.5 million new energy workers that the 
Quadrennial Energy Review estimates will be needed by 2030. We were 
also able to reach agreement encouraging investments in hydro power 
projects, geothermal energy, nuclear power and other emissions-free 
resources. Finally, this conference agreement also would promote 
innovation in many areas of science that are so important to us.
  What is so frustrating is that we followed regular order in putting 
together an Energy bill. We held numerous hearings followed by a 3-day 
committee markup. On the Senate floor, we considered in excess of 300 
amendments. We then worked all summer long and all fall with our House 
colleagues to reach a conference agreement.
  It is so disappointing to now have our House colleagues refuse to 
consider these important provisions. There were many hard-fought issues 
upon which we eventually agreed. We all had to come to the table and 
take into consideration all interests. Whether you are talking 
sportsmen and open access to hunting, which my colleague from Alaska so 
championed, or whether you are talking about how to get water 
agreements that involve fishermen, tribes, farmers, and a variety of 
river interests--we were able to accomplish that. Or whether you are 
talking about fixing the fire funding budget issue that has been 
debated back and forth among our House and Senate colleagues for almost 
7 or 8 years now, we were able to reach agreement on all of these 
things. It is very irresponsible for our House colleagues to drop the 
ball by failing to consider these solutions and taking yes for an 
answer.
  What is even more outrageous is that now the House wants to take a 
provision subject to the Energy and Natural Resource's jurisdiction--
the California water issue--and airdrop it into the WRDA bill, which is 
subject to the jurisdiction of the Environment and Public Works 
Committee.
  As much as our House colleagues like to boast about their mythical 
no-earmark rule, the California water deal that is now being decried in 
newspapers in California as the ``midnight rider,'' was airdropped in 
as an earmark in the WRDA bill and sent over to the Senate. This is an 
issue that should be considered by the Energy Committee.
  I say to my colleagues that, if you want energy policy considered in 
the future and you want it to be a product of the regular order process 
in the Senate that creates consensus, you need to say to our House 
colleagues that are refusing to move forward on a conference report 
that this situation is problematic. The process that we are supposed to 
follow includes the Senate and House resolving differences as part of a 
conference committee. Instead, if we pass the WRDA bill, we will be 
rewarding those that wish to sidetrack regular order and drop into 
bills other items that have not been worked out and basically don't 
adhere to the rules of the Senate or even the House's own rules against 
earmarks they hypocritically claim to follow.
  It is a very cynical view of the world to allow the House to add 
Energy and Natural Resources Committee jurisdictional legislation into 
another committee's bill and violates the House's own rules and 
basically overruns the collaborative process we used for the Energy 
Policy and Modernization Act. The House has, instead, turned to 
backroom deal making.
  I join my colleague, Senator Murkowski, tonight to describe the great 
and hard work that was done in our conference. I think she and I 
believe in it. I think we believe in the Senate the way it is supposed 
to work. We believe in the hard work that it took to reach compromise 
on so many issues, and I think we want to make sure that our colleagues 
know that getting to yes was just inches away.
  It is very unfortunate that the House, instead of doing its homework, 
pursued a very cynical approach to the legislative arena--something I 
thought we jettisoned a decade ago--airdropping things in the dark of 
night. I mistakenly thought the House leadership was being earnest 
about making sure that the legislative process is transparent.
  I hope our colleagues will understand these are important policy 
issues and take the remaining days--if we happen to be here an extra 
few days this weekend or even into next week--and encourage the House 
leadership to get our energy and natural resources bill enacted and 
bank what is good public policy in the best interests of the United 
States.
  I thank my colleague from Alaska for her leadership on the Energy 
Committee, her hard work and dedication, her willingness to work across 
the aisle, and a willingness to be very tough on these important thorny 
public policy issues--and not to back away from that--and to find 
solutions for everybody in the Senate.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
  Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I acknowledge the very good work of my 
friend, colleague, and neighbor to the south of us from Washington 
State, Senator Cantwell.
  She has been a partner throughout this 2-year process we have been 
engaged in as we have tried to formulate and format a renewed energy 
policy for this country, something that has not been done in close to a 
decade.
  We acknowledged early on that there were going to be policy 
differences we each have, given where we come from and some differing 
views, but we were committed to working together to work through the 
thorny issues, to work toward consensus, not only that she and I could 
come to but our whole committee and, ultimately, the Senate. We were 
successful in doing that.
  I also acknowledge the good work of Senator Cantwell's staff, as well 
as my staff, on the Energy Committee. These folks have been working 
tirelessly for 2 years, but more immediately--and when I say 
tirelessly, pretty much 24/7 for the past several weeks, in trying to 
get us to a point where instead of talking about what might have been 
in an energy bill, being able to stand in front of my colleagues and 
tell them these are the policy changes that we will now see placed into 
law.
  I had truly wished I would not be in a situation where I would have 
to come to the floor and speak negatively about where we are right now 
because, as Senator Cantwell outlined, the process we have been engaged 
in is one that we are proud of, but also that the institution should be 
proud of.
  Our committees are designed to be incubators of good ideas and how we 
then allow these ideas to materialize and come together through good 
debate, amendments, refinement and then bringing that forward to the 
full body, again, for further work and refinement.
  We have done it by the book. There are not too many things in 
Congress that look like what you learned about how a bill becomes law. 
I am looking at the young pages sitting here. In your classes, in 
American Government, you learn about how a bill becomes law.
  If you read that and you see what happens around here, you would say: 
these are two different universes. You are nodding because you know you 
are seeing that.
  What we have attempted to do and what we have done for the past 2 
years is to allow our committees to work, to take the good ideas from 
energy-producing States such as Alaska and Louisiana, and to work with 
colleagues from the interior of the country with views and ideas that 
are perhaps different than ours, building consensus with energy policy, 
with resources, with access. We did it. We have been that textbook 
example of regular order process.

[[Page 16402]]

  I am actually told that they have a training course or a training 
program offered in the Congress that walks committee staff through 
examples of how a bill should be moved through a committee. Just the 
other day, I was told that our bill, the Energy bill, is the model that 
is being used as what to do in that training program.
  This is quite the compliment; however we still have to get it over 
the finish line. This is where Senator Cantwell and I are so 
frustrated. This is where we are so frustrated because, after 2 years 
of work and being this close to the finish line, we are being denied 
that opportunity to share this success and all because of lack of 
action over in the other Chamber.
  We started this Energy bill by convening ideas. We held hearings in 
Washington, in Alaska, and other places in between. We gathered the 
ideas for what we hoped was going to be the first major Energy and 
Natural Resources bill signed into law in nearly a decade. We held 
oversight hearings and legislative hearings. We reviewed over 115 
separate bills. We spent weeks negotiating a base text of the 
bipartisan bill. We held markups where our bill drew support from 
nearly all of our Members. Then we brought it here to the floor.
  Yes, we had some bumps along the way. Flint, which certainly needed 
to be addressed, was part of it. That seems like ancient history now. 
But we persevered. We worked through all of the issues. We added more 
priorities for our Members, to the point where over 80 different 
Senators had their priorities incorporated into our bill.
  Then, in April, 85 Members of this body--85 Members--voted in favor 
of passage of this bill. When we think of all that was contained in it, 
to gain that level of consensus, I think the Senator from Washington 
and I were doing something positive, to get everybody on board.
  Then the House responded to our Energy bill in late May, and in July, 
we went to a formal conference. We began work right away. The 
negotiations started just about immediately, even before the first 
formal meeting of our conference.
  So think about it. We have been working this conference between the 
two bodies since July--and not just on an occasional basis; rather, we 
have been working this aggressively. During this conference, we have 
held more than 75 bipartisan and bicameral negotiating sessions at the 
staff level. There have been countless more meetings and daily 
interactions amongst our staff. The final conference report includes 
provisions from 74 Members of the Senate and 224 Members of the House. 
That means there is input from almost 60 percent of the U.S. Congress 
included in the conference report. This is not a bill where we are 
cramming it through; this is a measure of considerable consensus.
  The chairmen and the ranking members of the committees of 
jurisdiction, whether it is here in the Senate Energy and Natural 
Resources, the House Natural Resources Committee, the House Science 
Committee, the House Energy and Natural Resources Committee--we have 
been meeting to resolve our differences. Again, staff has been working 
around the clock. Just this weekend, we went through hundreds of pages 
to close out all of the issues. Again, we did it by the book. We did 
what we were supposed to be doing. We were the team players here. We 
adhered to the regular order process.
  Senator Cantwell said we were doing the ``normal'' process. But I 
think what we are doing now is extraordinary. It is not normal--because 
it seems that, if there is guerilla warfare that is going on, that 
seems to be the way to move a bill nowadays. That does not send a very 
powerful message nor set a good example for how to advance a consensus 
measure such as we have with the Energy bill.
  We were really on the right track until just a couple of weeks ago 
when it became pretty apparent that the House was, plainly stated, just 
done. They were finished. They stopped negotiating in good faith. They 
stopped trying to work to reach agreement.
  So we are at that point where we have the House going out. We are 
told we here in the Senate are going to be wrapping up shop. But, as 
Senator Cantwell has outlined, what colleagues need to know is what is 
being left behind on the table. It is not just the guts of this 
conference bill that we have been negotiating that is on the table; 
what is on the table a tremendous amount of time and effort put forth 
into a good committee process that has built a consensus and a good 
product. That is a problem, and I think it is something we are going to 
have to work on. It looks like we are going to have to work on this 
aggressively in the next year.
  There has been a lot of speculation about what is really going on. 
What is the problem? Why can't you get a deal? Well, I mentioned that 
we have closed out every aspect of this bill with the exception of two 
issues, but there have been a lot of excuses out there that we don't 
have enough time; the bill is too complicated; there is not enough in 
it; then suddenly, there is too much in it. So we worked to address all 
of that, and we got it down to two issues. Both of those issues can be 
easily resolved in plenty of time for us around here if everybody is 
willing to sit down and work through them in good faith. In fact, on 
both of those issues, the Senate has already written--we have already 
proposed the modifications that were necessary to reach the final 
agreement. What happened when we sent them over? We wait. It is going 
to be half an hour, an hour, and now it is half a day. That is not good 
faith.
  I will give one specific example. This relates to LNG export 
projects. This is something, quite honestly, that folks had agreed was 
going to be a part of the bill. We have included it in every Senate 
offer. It was taken out by the House. Then, when the House says, ``Your 
bill doesn't seem to have enough in it. What happened to LNG?'' we say 
``You took it out.'' Let's not be moving the goalpost.
  What we have is vitally significant for many in our Western States. 
It includes forest management reform with the potential for a fire 
budget fix, for our sportsmen and women who care about accessing our 
public lands for hunting and fishing and recreational shooting. It 
includes a water package to help boost our water storage and management 
in some of our most drought-stricken Western States. It has a robust 
public lands title with more than 50 bills in it that provide 
everything from the expansion of a VA cemetery in South Dakota to high-
priority land exchanges in places like Colorado. We have language 
related to the National Park Service Centennial that really sets our 
national parks on track for a second century. It includes a range of 
nuclear, cyber security, and hydroelectric innovation policies. These 
are good things that will help our country move forward and produce 
more energy that is affordable, reliable, and free of any form of 
pollution. We have worked so hard.
  To be here on the 8th of December and say we are out of time--well, 
tell that to the sportsmen who have been working for 6 years to get a 
legislative package. And here we are on December 8 saying we are done. 
Tell that to those--particularly from the West--who are concerned about 
wildfire threats year after year and whether the funds are going to be 
there not only to address fire but to be there for the other accounts 
that our agencies are worried about. Tell them that we ran out of time 
on December 8.
  Mr. President, I have to say that we have not run out of time; we 
have, unfortunately, run out of a desire to work together to finish 
important work for this country. We have plenty of time and should not 
be making excuses. Now is not the time to run down the clock. We must 
recognize that we have worked for 2 long years and this work deserves 
to be placed into law.
  I urge my friends and my colleagues in the other Chamber to work with 
us on this. Let's not give up on energy policy.
  With that, I yield the floor. I thank my colleague for the indulgence 
of some additional time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.

[[Page 16403]]


  Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I appreciate the good work Senator 
Murkowski does in cooperation with people in this institution.


                         Remembering John Glenn

  Mr. President, today our country lost an American hero, Col. John 
Glenn, Senator John Glenn. I will be back on a later date to deliver a 
more formal tribute with my colleague Senator Portman, but I wish to 
share some initial thoughts as I, along with my wife Connie and so many 
Ohioans, mourn for John Glenn and join so many people around the 
country who loved him and cared for him and respected him.
  It has been one of the great lessons of my life to get to know John 
Glenn and for Connie and me to count him and Annie as mentors and 
friends. We remember just a few short years ago, on the 50th 
anniversary of his flight into space, the night before, we had dinner 
with John and Annie, Connie and I and his children, David and Glen, and 
his daughter-in-law, David's wife, and how interesting and joyous it 
was to hear him recount his experiences and so much of what he has 
done. We loved him. We will miss him. We will continue to draw strength 
and wisdom from the lessons he shared with us over the years.
  The first time I met John Glenn was in 1969. It was Colonel Glenn 
then, long before he was elected to the Senate. Colonel Glenn spoke at 
an Eagle Scout dinner in Mansfield, OH. Only a few short weeks earlier, 
in my court of honor, I was awarded the Eagle Scout award. I was 16 
years old. I got to meet Colonel Glenn. His words inspired us. They 
stayed with me as I grew up and looked for ways to serve community and 
country.
  Thirty years later, John granted me the honor of walking me down this 
center aisle. When Senators are sworn in, any term they serve, they are 
often accompanied by a Senator from their State or a former Senator--
whomever that Senator-elect or that Senator who is soon to be sworn in 
chooses--and I chose to walk down with my friend and former Senator, at 
that point, John Glenn.
  John had a humility and a kindness unusual, perhaps, in this business 
and in, perhaps, somebody of his level of accomplishment. His kindness 
and intelligence, his courage--we know about that--and his commitment 
to service set an example that our country needs today more than ever. 
His legacy will live on not just in the pages of history books, it will 
live on through the Americans he inspired, whether it was a passion for 
exploration that led him to join NASA, a dedication to country that 
called him to the Armed Forces, or a desire to make the world a better 
place that led him to public service.
  John will live in the hearts of everyone who knew and loved him, 
including his beloved wife Annie and his wonderful children, Glen and 
David.
  I spoke with Annie and John on their 73rd wedding anniversary, and 
Annie told me the story that--I knew they knew each other in grade 
school. They dated beginning--I don't know exactly when. I asked Annie 
if they wanted to marry in high school, and she said yes, but her 
parents said they couldn't do that because it wouldn't last. So they 
waited until after Pearl Harbor, when I believe John was 20 and Annie 
was 21, and they were married for 73-plus years.
  Ohio and the United States have lost a great light today, but that 
pales in comparison to what we gained over his 95 years on Earth. I 
hope my colleagues will join me in sending out our love and prayers to 
John's family at this difficult time during the holidays.
  I heard John Glenn stories even today at the ceremony unveiling the 
portrait of our Democratic leader Harry Reid, which took place in the 
Russell Building, and a number of former colleagues of John's came up 
to me and they had just heard of his death that happened midafternoon 
today. So I thank them for their memories.


                         Miners Protection Act

  Mr. President, last night Senator Manchin and I were on the floor of 
the Senate with Senators Wyden and Donnelly and Casey, and we were 
again asking our colleagues to honor the commitment Harry Truman made 
seven decades ago to the mine workers of this country, to the retired 
mine workers, and to their widows. We all know that the life expectancy 
of mine workers is often less than the life expectancy of a teacher or 
an elected official or an insurance agent or someone who works in many 
other kinds of businesses. They are more likely to be injured on the 
job. They are more likely, in some cases, to perish on the job. They 
are more likely to contract an illness from the air they breathe and 
the conditions in the mines, whether it is black lung or whether it is 
some kind of heart disease. So this is particularly important to mine 
workers and the widows, that we take care of their insurance.
  Most of the mine workers I know got a notice in late November or 
early this month saying their insurance would be cut off at the end of 
December. What a Christmas present. We have asked Senator McConnell, 
the Republican leader, who seems to be the only one standing in the 
way, month after month after month to fix this so these widows and 
these retired miners don't get this notice saying: Your insurance will 
be cut off.
  Finally, Senator McConnell, the Republican leader, asked us to make 
it bipartisan. We did. We have a number of Republican cosponsors, 
including Senator Portman from my State, Senator Capito from West 
Virginia, and a number of others. We did that.
  Then Senator McConnell said: Go through regular order; put a bill 
through committee. We did that 18 to 8 in the Senate Finance 
Committee--every Democrat joined by a third or so of the Republicans. 
We did that.
  Then he said: That is not good enough; now we want you to find a way 
to pay for it. We did. No tax dollars involved. This is money in the 
abandoned mine funds assessed against the mine companies, accumulated 
over the years.
  We did all three of those things. Still, Senator McConnell, because 
of his antipathy, apparently, toward the United Mine Workers union--if 
he wants to have antipathy towards the union, if he hates unions, that 
is his business. I would rather he didn't, but that is his business. 
But to stand in the way of these widows and these retired mine workers 
because of his animosity toward the union is pretty troubling.
  Last night, Senator Manchin and I, issue after issue after issue, 
continued to object to other generally noncontroversial bills that we 
support--some I cosponsored--until this body does its job. But if this 
Senate doesn't act--it looks like a number of Senators, as House 
Members, apparently have already gone home for Christmas, so I will 
have plenty of colleagues go home and celebrate the holidays. 
Regardless of their faith, they will celebrate the holidays in the 3 
upcoming weeks. But these thousands of mine workers and thousand of 
mine worker retirees and thousands of widows of mine workers--their 
Christmas isn't going to be so good because now--Senator McConnell 
offered a little bit and said: We will give you a 4-month extension. 
But do you know what that means? That means they will get the letter. 
They have already gotten the first letter saying their insurance runs 
out at the end of December. Now they will get a second letter, if we do 
the 4-month extension, in January or February saying: Sorry, it is 
going to run out again in April.
  How would we like to live that way? You are going to have insurance 
until this date, and then we will give you a little extension and you 
can have it until that date. That is simply not fair. Maybe it is OK 
for us because we have good benefits and we have good insurance, but it 
is not OK with them.
  So I am hopeful that Senator McConnell and Republican leaders will 
bring this to the floor, will support a 1-year--we want more. We would 
like to see the pension problem fixed too. But before the holidays, 
let's do a 1-year extension on the insurance. It is a commitment 
President Truman made and Presidents of both parties for seven decades 
have honored. It is the least we can do. I think we should stay here 
and work up until Christmas if it doesn't happen.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.

[[Page 16404]]


  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to enter into a 
colloquy with Senator McCain when he arrives.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Right on cue, so I will start off here.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for a colloquy 
between myself and the Senator from South Carolina.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Just to make sure.


                                 JASTA

  Very briefly, I will let Senator McCain lead off, but I want to talk 
about the way forward regarding JASTA.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I would like to join my friend and 
colleague on this issue that is of transcendent importance to America's 
relationship with our friends and allies--literally placing Americans 
and American companies and corporations and governments in great 
danger--particularly governments.
  I would just like to mention in passing, if my colleague will indulge 
me very quickly, because I have here in front of me--and I will ask 
that it be included in the Record--statements from the President of the 
United States, the Director of the CIA, the Chairman of the Joint 
Chiefs of Staff, the Secretary of State, and the Secretary of Defense, 
all on this issue we are talking about.
  The leaders of our government, from the President on down, including 
the heads of our most important defense agencies, have expressed--and I 
will quote them in just a minute.
  My friends, Congress passed the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism 
Act, or JASTA. It was well-intentioned to allow claims against foreign 
governments that might be complicit in terrorist attacks against the 
United States. The spirit behind the legislation is noble. Any foreign 
government behind the attack on our homeland or our citizens must be 
held accountable. But it has become clear that the unintended 
consequences of this legislation are quite grave.
  As it exists now, JASTA presents a significant risk to the United 
States and our military and diplomatic personnel serving across the 
globe.
  As it currently exists, as my colleague from South Carolina will 
explain in greater detail, JASTA undermines a fundamental international 
norm of sovereign immunity that protects governments from being sued in 
court except in narrow circumstances. If this law is not narrow--and 
please, my colleagues, understand, the Senator from South Carolina and 
I are not for abolishing this law; we are for putting in a scope that 
protects the United States of America; that is, if we allow our laws to 
target governments indiscriminately, we will expose our country to 
grave risk and undermine our ability to pursue justice in a complex 
world.
  No country in the world stands to lose more from an erosion of these 
legal standards than the United States of America. The United States 
has more bases and more forward-deployed personnel protecting peace and 
security than any other country. JASTA now gives these countries an 
incentive to bring these brave men and women to court to answer for 
U.S. counterterrorism policies.
  If other countries pass similar legislation, it means the United 
States and American soldiers, diplomats, and intelligence officers 
serving in some of the world's most dangerous and difficult countries 
will be forced to justify their actions and defend the policies we have 
made to defend this country before courts that may not share our 
standards of due process and fairness. Our allies will wonder if it is 
wise to join our coalitions to fight terrorism if they, too, will face 
legal liability in courts around the world. Thus, we are faced with the 
twisted irony that the men and women who put themselves in harm's way 
to bring the 9/11 attackers to justice and to defeat those who still 
seek to attack the United States are the people placed directly at risk 
by JASTA.
  We must be concerned with the diplomatic and economic fallout of this 
law. Our allies and partners around the world, particularly those who 
struggle with terrorism at home, now wonder when they might be hauled 
in to courts for terrorist actions. They face potential court-ordered 
damages and asset seizures. Their citizens and companies doing business 
in the United States are at risk. It is only reasonable that these 
countries will consider pulling their assets and resources out of the 
United States out of fear.
  In short, JASTA could cause our allies in the fight against terrorism 
to distance themselves from us as a country that most needs their 
support against those who mean to do us harm.
  Now I would like to provide some quotes. Our Nation's top national 
security officials have issued statements and written to Congress to 
warn us about the unintended consequences of JASTA.
  Let's begin with President Obama. I will quote from his letter from 
White House. He wrote:

       JASTA . . . would neither protect Americans from terrorist 
     attacks nor improve the effectiveness of our response to such 
     attacks. Doing so would instead threaten to erode sovereign 
     immunity principles that protect the United States, including 
     our U.S. Armed Forces and other officials, overseas.

  I will admit that Senator Graham and I have a special relationship 
with the men and women who are serving--his 22 years as a member of the 
U.S. Air Force Reserve and every year going to Iraq or Afghanistan; I 
obviously have sons who have served. I don't want to see my sons or 
anybody else's sons in court because they might have violated a 
sovereign nation the way that we are saying JASTA affects our country.

       Enacting JASTA into law, however, would neither protect 
     Americans from terrorist attacks nor improve the 
     effectiveness of our response to such attacks. Doing so would 
     instead threaten to erode sovereign immunity principles that 
     protect the United States, including our U.S. Armed Forces 
     and other officials, overseas.

  The Secretary of Defense wrote:

       U.S. Servicemembers stationed here and overseas, and 
     especially those supporting our counterterrorism efforts, 
     would be vulnerable to private individuals' accusations that 
     their activities contributed to acts alleged to violate a 
     foreign state's law.

  He continued to say that, whether guilty or innocent, ``the mere 
allegation of their involvement could subject them to a foreign court's 
jurisdiction and the accompanying litigation and intrusive discovery 
process that goes along with defending against such lawsuits. . . . Our 
servicemembers might be required to testify about or provide documents 
on operations that they are obligated under U.S. law not to disclose, 
exposing them to punishment for contempt by the foreign court, 
including imprisonment.''
  According to the Secretary of Defense, we could be risking 
imprisonment for the men and women who are serving in our military 
overseas.
  The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff--I think we all respect the 
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Here is his view:

       Any legislation that risks reciprocal treatment by foreign 
     governments would increase the vulnerability of U.S. 
     Servicemembers to foreign legal action while acting in an 
     official capacity.
       In those cases . . . the Servicemember could be held in 
     civil, or criminal, contempt should he or she refuse to 
     appear or otherwise comply with the foreign court's orders.

  The Secretary of State, John Kerry, wrote:

       JASTA could encourage foreign courts to exercise 
     jurisdiction over the United States or U.S. officials.

  The same thing.
  The Director of CIA wrote:

       (JASTA) will have grave implications for the national 
     security of the United States. The most damaging consequence 
     would be for those US Government officials who dutifully work 
     overseas on behalf of our country. The principle of sovereign 
     immunity protects US officials every day, and is rooted in 
     reciprocity. If we fail to uphold this standard for other 
     countries, we place our own nation's officials in danger. No 
     country has

[[Page 16405]]

     more to lose from undermining that principle than the United 
     States--and few institutions would be at greater risk than 
     the CIA.

  Which certainly makes sense.
  So here we have the Director of the CIA, the Vice President of the 
United States, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the President 
of the United States, the Secretary of Defense--all want us to narrow 
the interpretation of this law. What does it require? Whose word more 
do you want?
  All I am saying is that we need to narrow the law. We must make it 
clear that countries will not be held responsible for rogue actions of 
their citizens. Unless we can show that a nation knowingly assists a 
terrorist group, sovereign nations should not be dragged into our 
courts.
  If we don't fix JASTA, our ability to defend ourselves will be 
undermined and the people we ask to go into harm's way on our behalf 
will be placed in jeopardy. America must pursue justice, but in the 
long run, JASTA will make it harder, not easier, to bring terrorists to 
justice and prevent terrorism in the first place.
  We need to fix this law.
  I ask my colleague, let's make it clear, are we asking to have this 
law repealed? Are we asking that people in countries that are 
responsible for acts of terror to be let off the hook? Are we trying to 
say committing acts of terror can be sponsored by any nation and we 
will turn the other way? That is basically the argument that is being 
mounted in sometimes hysterical fashion, and what we are trying to do 
is to ensure that a government must knowingly--maybe not even have done 
it themselves but knowingly. Isn't that the key, particularly coming 
from someone with your background as an officer trained in the Uniform 
Code of Military Justice and the International Rule of Law?
  Mr. GRAHAM. Thank you, Senator McCain. Your overview was excellent 
about the perils we face as a nation if we don't modify the law. I will 
try to give you a couple of minutes of how did we get to here. After 9/
11--the most horrific attack on our homeland, maybe ever, I guess, 
since the Civil War--the bottom line was that we responded as a nation 
in many ways. The 9/11 families have a special place in American 
history and our hearts. They have been pursuing legal claims against 
those responsible for the attack.
  Sovereign immunity is a concept that protects our government and 
every other government from doing business because if you don't have 
the sovereign immunity, you can't function as a government. There are 
waivers to that concept--a tort. If somebody in Saudi Arabia is driving 
a car down the streets of New York and they are working for the Embassy 
and consulate and they hit you, there is a process where you can sue. 
You can sue your own Federal Government--the Federal Tort Claims Act--
if you are injured as a result of being hit by a military vehicle. Even 
though sovereign immunity applies, we waived that to allow citizens who 
have been injured torturously to bring claims in a very controlled 
process.
  The 9/11 families, for well over a decade now, have been pursuing 
nation-states like Saudi Arabia in court, trying to hold them liable 
for the act of terrorism of the 19 hijackers. Under our law, a tort 
does not include acts of international terrorism. I was very open-
minded to say, certainly, that is a tort. If you are injured or killed 
because of an act of international terrorism, you have been harmed, and 
I don't mind holding somebody responsible who caused that harm.
  Now you are getting into the operation of a nation-state. If you 
believe the Saudi Government collaborated with the 19 hijackers and 
they knew or should have known about the attack and assisted in the 
attack, not only should they be held liable in our courts as probably 
an act of war under international law. Unfortunately, the way we have 
structured this law, that requirement does exist.
  Let me give you an example of how that can come back to haunt us. We 
are engaged in a conflict in Syria today. We are training, providing 
weapons, and training a lot of groups inside Syria to destroy ISIL. One 
of those groups is the WPG Kurds. They are literally the cousins of the 
PKK, a terrorist organization inside Turkey. There is friction between 
the Kurds and Syria and the Turkish Government, and it is beginning to 
bubble up.
  We are knowingly providing training to Kurdish elements inside Syria 
for the express purpose of enlisting them in the fight against ISIL. 
What I don't want to have happen is that the CIA officer, the special 
forces soldier, anybody in our government who is working in the 
training, equipping process to be held liable if that training and 
those weapons are used to go into Turkey or some other place where we 
didn't intend for it to happen and didn't know about it.
  As this law is written now, it is my fear the very act of helping 
them do one thing could make you liable for everything they do. We are 
trying to narrow the scope, and we are trying to make sure that 
whatever claim against a foreign government lies for the 9/11 attack, 
that we don't open the door to lawsuits, imprisonment, criminal 
complaints, liability by us as a nation-state for all of the activities 
we are doing throughout the world.
  We are training people in Mosul, in Iraq today. We have been training 
the Iraqi Security Forces. We have been training tribal militia. The 
one thing I don't want to have happen is the people who provide the 
weapons and training--that if a Sunni group, for some reason out of our 
control, goes into a Shiite village and commits a genocide or the 
reverse or we are helping the Shiites and they go on a sectarian binge, 
I don't want us to be held liable unless you can prove that we 
knowingly engaged in the act in question; that it wasn't enough just to 
help the tribal leaders, Sunni tribal leaders, fight Al Qaeda; that if 
they do something outside of what we intended, the only way we can be 
liable and people working for us can be liable is if we knew about it 
and we are involved in it. That is what is missing.
  It may be harder for the lawyers representing the 9/11 families to 
prove the case, but if we don't make the standard as I described, we 
are opening ourselves up as a nation and all of those throughout the 
world.
  Nobody understands the world better than Senator McCain. I promise 
you, we are providing aid and assistance to groups who are very 
questionable at best, but that is the world we live in. The Mideast is 
a complete mess. I don't want my country, our country, and those who 
serve under our flag to ever be hauled into a foreign court because 
they were doing the training and the equipping that our Nation ordered 
them to do, and I don't want us as a nation to be responsible for acts 
we did not know about or intend to happen. Just simply helping somebody 
doesn't make you liable for all the things they might do down the road.
  If there is evidence that the Saudi Government knowingly or should 
have known about the attacks of 9/11 and aided that attack, you can 
bring a claim. If it is any less here for the 9/11 attack, then that 
lesser standard would be used against us because countries, as I speak, 
are adopting their version of JASTA. The one thing we don't want to do 
is open up the international legal system to claims against America 
based on what we did here at home and not have thought it through very 
well.
  I would end on this. We all voted for it because we are sympathetic 
to the cause and want to make sure the 9/11 families can proceed in 
court to hold those accountable for the horrific acts against their 
families. I don't think we are helping those families by passing a law 
that is not well thought out and putting other families at risk who are 
in the fight today.
  This is not suing for a war that is over. The damage is done after 
the war. The war on terror is very much alive and well. As far as the 
eye can see, America is going to be involved in equipping, training, 
aiding, and assisting groups. I don't want our country to be held 
liable and the people we ask to do the training and equipping to find 
themselves in a foreign court unless we as a nation knew and intended 
the consequence in question.

[[Page 16406]]

  If we don't change this law, we will have not served those in the 
fight very well. We can modify this law in a way to allow claims to go 
forward post-9/11. All of us agreed to a process to allow the 9/11 
families to move forward. I hope all of us can agree, or at least most 
of us, to modify that process to make sure we don't have unintended 
consequences that everybody in the national security infrastructure of 
the United States is telling us we created.
  No Member of the Senate, in wanting to help 9/11 families, I believe, 
wants to expose other families and those who serve this Nation to being 
hauled into foreign courts and being accused of a crime and being sued. 
We have a chance to fix it. I will tell you this. If we don't fix it, 
we are going to regret it because the activities we are engaged in 
today, I am afraid, could be a basis of action against our Nation under 
the law we passed.
  If you did exactly what this law allows in another country and the 
terrorist organization was helped by the United States, even if you 
view them as terrorists, even though we didn't know about what they 
did, we could be liable, and I don't want that.
  Mr. McCain. May I ask my colleague one additional question?
  We have heard from literally every Middle Eastern country on this 
issue. No threats have been made. The conversation between us and 
Ministers of various countries in the Middle East have been of grave 
concern of support for the fundamentals of this law but also a deep 
concern about the ramifications my colleague from South Carolina just 
described.
  Let's for a moment put yourself in their position. You face now the 
possibility of a lawsuit brought against your country because some acts 
of terror have taken place by citizens of your country without your 
knowledge or assistance. You are about to go into court in the United 
States of America, and you have significant assets--and you are the 
lawyer and I am not, but it seems to me the first thing a good lawyer 
is going to want to do is freeze the assets, pending the outcome of the 
suit that is being brought. By the way, I have received no threats in 
our conversations with these countries. Wouldn't anybody in their right 
mind say, Hey, I am not going to risk having my assets frozen there and 
maybe spend years in litigation in the courts.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Yes. I think the foreign policy of nations and the 
willingness to assist us as a nation is very much up in the air if we 
don't somehow modify this law because if you are doing business in the 
United States--let's pick Saudi Arabia. The claims can be brought 
against the Saudi Government. If there is a judgment, those assets can 
be attached and they can be taken. If you are not doing business here, 
you don't have to worry about your assets being taken by a court.
  I want to stress this. There can be a claim, but that claim has to be 
able to prove that the nation-state--example, Saudi Arabia--knew or 
should have known of the attack itself and aided the attack. If you can 
prove that, we not only should allow all lawsuits, we should rethink 
our relationship with Saudi Arabia.
  Here is what the Saudis tell me. If we actually did that, I don't 
blame you for rethinking the relationship with us. What you say is very 
true, Senator McCain. If this law stands in the United States--and this 
is an emotional time in the world. Juries render justice, but 
Mideastern nations are not very popular right now, for sometimes good 
reason. The Saudis are helping people in Yemen. They are helping people 
in Syria. Sometimes they are helping people differently than we are 
helping because they are more worried about Iran than Assad.
  It is a complex world, and I think nation-states are going to be 
reluctant to do business in America if they come from a complex part of 
the world if we don't modify this law because all of their assets are 
subject not only to being confiscated through a court process, it would 
no longer be a safe place to do business.
  I would stress this. The same thing could happen to us in other 
countries. If some groups we are helping in Syria somehow want to take 
on Saudi Arabia because they don't like their government, I don't want 
us to be sued in Saudi court and the American business assets that lie 
in Saudi Arabia be seized or attached if we didn't know the people in 
question were actually going to attack Saudi Arabia and collaborate in 
that attack.
  Mr. McCAIN. I have another scenario--drone strikes. We commit drone 
strikes literally everywhere in the Middle East where we find there are 
terrorists who are capable of mounting attacks on the United States of 
America. They are precision strikes, but on many occasions, civilians, 
as collateral damage, have also been killed. Those are just facts.
  What exposure are we subject to now?
  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, that is a really good question because the 
purpose of this legislation is to hold nation-states responsible for 
aiding terrorist organizations. The YPG Kurds, in the eyes of Turkey, 
could be a terrorist group. Al Qaeda is certainly considered a 
terrorist group in the eyes of everybody. We are now chasing terrorists 
all over the world. We are receiving information from one organization, 
taking that information, militarizing it, using it in a lethal fashion, 
and hitting people we don't intend to hit.
  Here is what would solve this problem. For a liability to exist on 
any nation-state, including the United States, the only time you can be 
sued is if you intended and knowingly engaged in the activity, 
partnering with a terrorist group or separately, with the knowledge 
that you meant for this to happen. If we don't have that knowing 
requirement, we are going to open ourselves up to a lot of heartache 
throughout the world.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, isn't it logical to say that you shouldn't 
hold a government of a country liable if something happened by attack 
from their country or by one of their citizens that we didn't know 
about? I mean, this is why I am confused as to why that just doesn't 
have a logical aspect to it. We don't want to hold people who are not 
guilty liable for damages.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, this is a really good question. One of the 
concepts we want to introduce into the new modification is 
discretionary decisions by nation-states. The original bill said you 
couldn't sue based on a discretionary decision--a planning activity, a 
strategic decision. Apparently, there is some evidence that lower-level 
Saudi officials or people in Saudi Arabia provided some money, helped 
people get passports, helped people do this, helped people do that. We 
don't want to be held liable if we have a rogue employee in a consulate 
somewhere. It has to be that the nation-state at the highest level of 
government--to be liable for the torturous act--knew or should have 
known. If we don't want to be guilty by association, you don't want to 
be held liable as an entire nation-state because you have one part of 
the government doing a function that was not approved by the government 
as a whole.
  All I can say is we are making strategic decisions today. I don't 
know how much money we have given to the Kurds and other allies in 
Syria fighting ISIL, but I can tell you some of these groups in the 
eyes of other people in the region are terrorists, and they have an 
agenda outside of fighting ISIL. I don't want to be liable because we 
helped them in the cause of fighting ISIL if they go and do something 
else to harm somebody else, some other nation, unless we knew about it, 
because it will stop our ability to have partners. Unfortunately, in 
the war on terror, you are not going to win the war if you don't make 
alliances, and sometimes these alliances are with pretty unsavory 
people.
  Saudi Arabia is in the same position we are. If you open the 
floodgates and the United States is liable because of the activity that 
occurred, people from your country are involved, but you don't have the 
requirement of saying you knew about it and you wanted it to happen. 
Then we are opening ourselves up to a liability all over the globe 
because, unlike Saudi Arabia, we are all over the place. We are 
everywhere--in the Philippines. I can't think of a region in the world 
where there are not American operatives, intelligence officials, or 
military officials who are not

[[Page 16407]]

somehow joined in the fight against different forms of terrorism, and 
all I am asking is that we modify this law. You can bring a claim 
against anybody you think caused 9/11, including a country like Saudi 
Arabia, but you have to prove that the government knew about it, should 
have known about it, and aided in the actual act. That is not in the 
law, and if we don't put that in the law, it will bite us all, and 
everybody fighting this war is trying to tell us we have gone too far.
  Next year Senator McCain, Senator Graham, and hopefully others, will 
make it a top priority to modify this law so we can conduct foreign 
policy as a nation and not put our warfighters at risk and those we 
rely upon to win this war, because we are not helping the 
9/11 families by putting people at risk for no good reason who are out 
there all over the world trying to protect us. That is exactly what we 
have done if we don't modify this law.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, this is not the opinion of the Senator 
from South Carolina and myself. This is the opinion of the President of 
the United States. This is the opinion of the Secretary of Defense. 
This is the opinion of the Secretary of State. This is the opinion of 
the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency. This is the opinion of 
the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
  I have had a lot of support in my time on various issues. I cannot 
remember a time in the last 30 years where literally every leader in 
government has come out in the strongest possible fashion not to do 
away with JASTA but to fix it so the United States of America itself is 
not put in jeopardy as other nations adopt this same law.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the letters from the 
President of the United States, the Secretary of State of the United 
States, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and the Secretary of 
Defense be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                              The White House,

                                                       Washington.
     Hon. Harry Reid,
     Minority Leader, U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Reid: Thank you for speaking with me about the 
     Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act, or JASTA. As I 
     noted in my message vetoing the bill and reiterated on our 
     call yesterday, I strongly believe that enacting JASTA into 
     law would be detrimental to U.S. national interests.
       I am firmly committed to assisting the families of the 
     victims of the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 (9/11) 
     in their pursuit of justice. Over the last eight years, my 
     Administration has continued and expanded upon the U.S. 
     Government's unprecedented response to the 9/11 attacks. We 
     have relentlessly pursued al-Qa'ida, killed Osama bin Laden, 
     supported and signed legislation that provides treatment for 
     first responders and other survivors, and declassified 
     additional information on the attacks so the families of 9/11 
     victims can better understand the information investigators 
     gathered following that dark day.
       Enacting JASTA into law, however, would neither protect 
     Americans from terrorist attacks nor improve the 
     effectiveness of our response to such attacks. Doing so would 
     instead threaten to erode sovereign immunity principles that 
     protect the United States, including our U.S. Armed Forces 
     and other officials, overseas. This is why I vetoed the bill 
     and why I believe you should vote to sustain that veto.
       In general, JASTA would allow lawsuits in U.S. Federal 
     Courts against foreign countries for actions taken abroad 
     that are alleged to have contributed to acts of terrorism in 
     the United States, notwithstanding long-standing principles 
     of sovereign immunity. We already have ways of addressing 
     state-sponsored terrorism. In fact, under existing law, 
     lawsuits may be brought for actions taken abroad that 
     contribute to acts of terrorism only against countries that 
     have been designated as state sponsors of terrorism. Under 
     JASTA, this very limited class of potential foreign state 
     defendants would be expanded to encompass every country in 
     the world. JASTA therefore threatens to upset immunity 
     protections that benefit the United States more than any 
     other Nation.
       The consequences of JASTA could be devastating to the 
     Department of Defense and its Service members--and there is 
     no doubt that the consequences could be equally significant 
     for our foreign affairs and intelligence communities, as well 
     as others who work in furtherance of U.S. national security. 
     The United States relies on principles of immunity to prevent 
     foreign litigants and foreign courts from second-guessing our 
     counterterrorism operations and other actions that we take 
     every day. Other countries could attempt to use JASTA, 
     however, to justify the creation of similar exceptions to 
     immunity targeted against U.S. policies and activities that 
     they oppose. As a result our Nation and its Armed Forces, 
     State Department, intelligence officials, and others may find 
     themselves subject to lawsuits in foreign courts--for 
     example, Service members stationed here and overseas, 
     including those supporting our counterterrorism efforts, 
     would be vulnerable to accusations that their activities 
     contributed to acts that allegedly violated foreign laws. 
     Without immunity, we could be forced to defend ourselves in 
     foreign courts regardless of whether the United States or its 
     officials had in fact provided support for terrorist acts or 
     committed acts in violation of foreign laws. Such lawsuits 
     could subject the United States and its officials to 
     intrusive and time-consuming discovery, including demands 
     from foreign litigants and courts for sensitive U.S. 
     Government information or intelligence. Such lawsuits could 
     also lead to sizeable money damages and efforts to attach 
     U.S. Government property to satisfy those judgments--efforts 
     to which we would be particularly vulnerable given our 
     substantial worldwide presence. And foreign states could 
     create exceptions to sovereign immunity that do not directly 
     mirror those created by JASTA, which would exacerbate these 
     risks.
       The JASTA also threatens to expose even our closest allies 
     and partners to litigation in U.S. courts. JASTA would go 
     well beyond 9/11 or the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, and a number 
     of our allies and partners have expressed serious concerns 
     about the bill. I am concerned that the enactment of JASTA 
     would risk eroding the cooperation we must have from partners 
     and allies to defend the Nation. And as I noted in my veto 
     message, JASTA threatens to take decisions concerning 
     potential foreign state involvement in terrorist attacks out 
     of the hands of national security and foreign policy 
     professionals and to place such decisions instead in the 
     hands of private litigants and courts. This is neither a 
     coordinated nor an effective way to respond to such concerns.
       To be clear, my opposition to JASTA is based primarily on 
     its potential impact on the United States. Sovereign immunity 
     principles do protect all Nations. But the United States has 
     a larger international presence, by far, than any other 
     country--we are active in a lot more places than any other 
     country, including Saudi Arabia. This means we benefit more 
     from the principles that JASTA threatens to erode than any 
     other country and have more to lose if those principles are 
     eroded than any other country.
                                  ____



                                       The Secretary of State,

                                       Washington, April 15, 2016.
     Hon. Lindsey O. Graham,
     Chairman, Subcommittee on State, Foreign Operations, and 
         Related Programs, Committee on Appropriations, U.S. 
         Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: I am writing to express the Department 
     of State's concerns regarding S. 2040, the Justice Against 
     Sponsors of Terrorism Act (JASTA).
       We deeply sympathize with all victims of terrorism and 
     appreciate the motivation behind this legislation. The U.S. 
     government condemns all acts of terrorism, and the Department 
     has long supported efforts of U.S. terrorism victims to 
     pursue compensation while also leading international efforts 
     to combat terrorism and prevent more attacks and more 
     victims.
       However, as it presently stands, JASTA would strip 
     sovereign immunity protections from all nations (not just 
     designated state sponsors of terrorism as under current law) 
     for a wide range of actions taken outside the United States 
     that lead to injury or loss in the United States, including 
     but not limited to acts associated with terrorism. This broad 
     expansion of the Foreign Sovereign Immunity Act's 
     jurisdictional provisions will be of deep concern to many 
     foreign governments with potentially grave repercussions for 
     U.S. national security interests. The United States benefits 
     significantly from the protection afforded by foreign 
     sovereign immunity given its extensive diplomatic, security, 
     and assistance operations around the world. JASTA could 
     encourage foreign courts to exercise jurisdiction over the 
     United States or U.S. officials--including members of our 
     military and intelligence community--for actions taken here 
     which may cause injury outside our borders. JASTA could also 
     expose U.S. allies and partners to litigation in U.S. courts 
     that will raise significant foreign policy sensitivities and 
     could limit their cooperation on key national security 
     issues, including counterterrorism initiatives. It could also 
     generate concerns about the security of foreign state assets 
     in the U.S. financial system.
       I ask you to consider the unintended consequences of 
     passing this legislation in its current form. We remain 
     prepared to work with Congress on appropriate changes that 
     would mitigate the harmful impacts on U.S. foreign policy and 
     national security.

[[Page 16408]]

       Thank you for your leadership on so many critical national 
     security issues.
           Sincerely,
     John F. Kerry.
                                  ____

         Department of Defense, Chairman of the Joint of Chiefs of 
           Staff,
                                  Washington, DC, 7 December 2016.
     Hon. John McCain, Chairman,
     Committee on Armed Services,
     U.S. Senate, Washington. DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: Thank you for the opportunity to offer 
     advice on congressional efforts to mitigate concerns I 
     expressed regarding legislation that may expose U.S. Service 
     members to the jurisdiction of foreign courts.
       On 27 September 2016, I forwarded concerns regarding the 
     potential second- and third-order consequences of legislation 
     that erode the long-standing principle of sovereign immunity. 
     These were:
       Any legislation that risks reciprocal treatment by foreign 
     governments would increase the vulnerability of U.S. Service 
     members to foreign legal action while acting in an official 
     capacity.
       In those cases where a foreign government decides to 
     exercise jurisdiction over a U.S. Service member, the Service 
     member could be held in civil, or criminal, contempt should 
     he or she refuse to appear or otherwise comply with the 
     foreign court's orders.
       If a U.S. Service member were to be sued in a foreign 
     court, it would be up to the foreign court to decide whether 
     classified or sensitive U.S. Government information would be 
     required as part of the litigation process. This could put 
     the United States in the position of choosing between the 
     disclosure of classified or sensitive information. and 
     subjecting a U.S. Service member to an adverse foreign court 
     ruling.
       While any attempt to alleviate the above risks is 
     commendable, increasing the burden of proof required to 
     prevail in a civil matter would not alleviate the above 
     concerns as victims may still file suit against a foreign 
     state. If a foreign government enacted reciprocal 
     legislation, suits could be brought against the United States 
     and may implicate U.S. Service members. While at the end of a 
     trial such a suit may not prevail if the victim is not able 
     to meet a heightened standard of proof--a heightened standard 
     may not stop a suit from being filed. In such a situation. 
     Service members may be subpoenaed to appear in court and 
     prevented from departing the country.
       My concerns would only be hilly alleviated by legislation 
     that restores the principle of sovereign immunity and 
     protects U.S. Service members from reciprocal legislation 
     that may subject them to the jurisdiction of a foreign court.
           Sincerely,
                                           Joseph F. Dunford, Jr.,
     General, U.S. Marine Corps.
                                  ____


      Statement Secretary of Defense Ash Carter, December 7, 2016.

       I appreciate the opportunity to provide views on the 
     potentially harmful consequences that the Justice Against 
     Sponsors of Terrorism Act (JASTA) may have on the United 
     States, the Department of Defense, and Service members.
       As I stated in my testimony before the Senate Armed 
     Services Committee on September 22, 2016, I agree with the 
     intent of JASTA, which is to honor the families of 
     9/11 victims. However, the potential second-and third-order 
     consequences of JASTA could be devastating to the Department 
     and its Service members and could undermine our important 
     counterterrorism efforts abroad.
       In general terms, JASTA allows lawsuits in U.S. Federal 
     Courts against foreign states for actions taken abroad that 
     are alleged to have contributed to acts of terrorism in the 
     United States, notwithstanding longstanding principles of 
     sovereign immunity. Under the law that existed before JASTA 
     was enacted, similar lawsuits were available for actions only 
     against designated state sponsors of terrorism. JASTA has 
     extended the stripping of immunity to states that are not 
     designated sponsors of terrorism, potentially subjecting many 
     of the United States' allies and partner nations to 
     litigation in U.S. courts.
       We have concerns that JASTA may cause foreign governments 
     to enact legislation to create exceptions to immunity for 
     conduct by the United States and its personnel. Such 
     legislation may not directly mirror, and may be more 
     expansive than, the exceptions created by JASTA. This is 
     likely to increase our country's vulnerability to lawsuits 
     overseas and to encourage foreign governments or their courts 
     to exercise jurisdiction over the United States or U.S. 
     officials in situations in which we believe the United States 
     is entitled to sovereign immunity. U.S. Service members 
     stationed here and overseas, and especially those supporting 
     our counterterrorism efforts, would be vulnerable to private 
     individuals' accusations that their activities contributed to 
     acts alleged to violate a foreign state's law. Such lawsuits 
     could relate to actions taken by members of armed groups that 
     received U.S. assistance or training, or misuse of U.S. 
     military equipment by foreign forces.
       The implications of JASTA are severe. I will highlight a 
     few of them.
       First, whether the United States or our Service members 
     have in fact provided support for terrorist acts or aided 
     organizations that later commit such acts in violation of 
     foreign laws is irrelevant to whether we would be forced to 
     defend against lawsuits by private litigants in foreign 
     courts. Instead, the mere allegation of their involvement 
     could subject them to a foreign court's jurisdiction and the 
     accompanying litigation and intrusive discovery process that 
     goes along with defending against such lawsuits. This could 
     result in significant consequences even if the United States 
     or our personnel were ultimately found not to be responsible 
     for the alleged acts. For example, our service members might 
     be required to testify about or provide documents on 
     operations that they are obligated under U.S. law not to 
     disclose, exposing them to punishment for contempt by the 
     foreign court, including imprisonment.
       Second, there would be a risk of sizeable monetary damage 
     awards in such cases, which could lead to efforts to attach 
     U.S. Government property to satisfy those awards. Given the 
     broad range of U.S. activities and significant presence 
     around the world, including our Department's foreign bases 
     and facilities abroad, we would have numerous assets 
     vulnerable to such attempts.
       Third, it is likely that litigants will seek sensitive 
     government information in order to establish their case 
     against a foreign state under JASTA in U.S. courts or against 
     the United States or U.S. personnel in a foreign court. This 
     could include classified intelligence data and analysis, as 
     well as sensitive operational information.
       Furthermore, if the United States or U.S. personnel were to 
     be sued in foreign courts, such information would likely be 
     sought by foreign plaintiffs, and it would be up to the 
     foreign court whether classified or sensitive U.S. Government 
     information sought by the litigants would be protected from 
     disclosure. Moreover, the classified information could well 
     be vital for our defense against the accusations. Disclosure 
     could put the United States in the difficult position of 
     choosing between revealing classified or otherwise sensitive 
     information or suffering adverse rulings and potentially 
     large damage awards for our refusal to do so, and could even 
     result in the imprisonment of U.S. personnel for refusing an 
     order of a foreign court to disclose such classified or 
     sensitive information.
       Finally, foreign lawsuits will divert resources from 
     mission crucial tasks; they could subject our servicemembers 
     and civilians, as well as contractor personnel, to 
     depositions, subpoenas for trial testimony, and other 
     compulsory processes both here and abroad. Indeed, such 
     personnel might be held in civil or even criminal contempt if 
     they refused to appear or to divulge classified or other 
     sensitive information at the direction of a foreign court.

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to pay attention to 
the most respected individuals in this country and pay attention to why 
they object, not to the entire bill but to the provisions that would, 
as Director Brennan said, cause the most damaging consequences for 
those U.S. Government officials who dutifully work overseas on behalf 
of our country.
  The Director of the CIA said that the principle of sovereign immunity 
protects U.S. officials every day and is rooted in reciprocity. If we 
fail to uphold the standard for other countries, we place our own 
Nation's officials in danger. No country has more to lose from 
undermining that principle than the United States. Mr. Brennan adds 
that few institutions would be at greater risk than the CIA.
  I urge my colleagues not to abolish JASTA, but let's fix it because 
the people we respect and admire the most and to whom we give the 
responsibilities to defend this Nation have unanimously argued that we 
need this fixed.
  I say to the President: I fear the profound consequences that may 
arise if we, with the best of intentions, do great, great damage to 
this Nation and its security.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.
  Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. President, I thank my colleagues for their 
thoughtful and informed analysis of an important national security 
issue.
  I ask unanimous consent to speak briefly, and I thank my colleague 
from Delaware for allowing me to do so.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                         Remembering John Glenn

  Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. President, I rise today on a sad occasion, and that 
is to talk about the loss of an American icon. He is a fellow Ohioan. 
He held

[[Page 16409]]

this seat in the Senate. He is one of our true heroes, as an astronaut, 
fighter pilot, successful business person, Senator, and later someone 
who helped young people throughout the State of Ohio by establishing 
his own school at Ohio State University. I am talking about John Glenn. 
We lost him today at age 95.
  I was watching some of the coverage on television about his career, 
and it focused a lot on his being the first to orbit the Earth on 
Friendship 7, a capsule you can see at the Air and Space Museum. It is 
not much bigger than two of these desks put together, but somehow he 
wedged himself in and did something heroic and important at the time. 
In a spaceflight competition with the Soviets, he was one who 
succeeded.
  What I didn't hear too much about was his career before being a 
famous astronaut and that amazing flight that ended up with him 
addressing a joint session of Congress or what he did after that 
amazing feat. So I want to talk about that for a second and say that I 
appreciate that tomorrow my colleagues will help me in joining to pay 
tribute to him through a Senate resolution.
  But prior to his being a famous astronaut, he was a famous American 
hero in my mind because he was a fighter pilot who signed up after 
Pearl Harbor, the 75th anniversary of which we celebrated this week. He 
flew 59 missions as a fighter pilot in World War II. He later flew 
about 90 missions in Korea. He was highly decorated as a fighter pilot. 
He then was a test pilot, and actually he broke the transcontinental 
flight time record as a test pilot. Then he decided to join the 
astronaut corps. He was part of that group of friendship astronauts who 
became famous later as being called ``The Right Stuff.'' He was the 
right stuff.
  He then had a successful career in business. He decided he loved 
public service, and he wanted to be in the Senate. He won election to 
the Senate and was actually reelected with historic numbers in my home 
State of Ohio. I got to serve with him during part of his time here. I 
was in the House; he was in the Senate. We worked on projects together.
  He was on the same committee my colleague from Delaware was on, and 
both of them have chaired it, the Governmental Affairs Committee. He 
loved good government. One of his big issues was stopping unfunded 
Federal mandates. I was the House sponsor on the Republican side; he 
was the Democratic sponsor here. We ended up in the Rose Garden 
together for a ceremony. He was tenacious. This was, by the way, an 
issue that not all Democrats agreed with him on; yet he did what he 
felt was right in the name of good government.
  We also worked on other projects together, and I always found that 
his focus was on his State, the people he represented, and how to make 
their lives better.
  After his Senate career, he started a new project. It was called the 
Glenn School of Public Affairs at the Ohio State University. I had the 
honor of teaching there for a few years before running for the Senate. 
I was a co-teacher for four different courses and got to know John 
Glenn in an entirely different way. He asked me to join their advisory 
board, which I did join. I am still on the advisory board for now the 
Glenn College. Last year we elevated the school to a college. This was 
John Glenn's greatest single accomplishment in the latter years of his 
life--creating an institution where young people can go and be inspired 
to go into public service and given the tools to be able to succeed. He 
loved that school. He loved those students. He chaired a board meeting 
only last month. He did it with humor, as he always did, and passion.
  One of his big issues he talked about last month was how he wanted to 
have a leadership institute to ensure that more young people could 
understand the importance of government service, which he felt was a 
noble undertaking--military service, government service, service for 
your country, service greater than yourself. We lost an American icon.
  He was also a man who loved his family. His wife, Annie Glenn--many 
of us here in this Chamber know her, and we love her because she is an 
amazing woman in her own right. For 73 years, they were married. They 
knew each other as little kids. They virtually grew up from the crib 
until now together. Annie Glenn was at his side constantly. That 
relationship, their partnership, is an example for my wife Jane and me 
and for all of us here in this Chamber.
  Earlier this year, my staff and I had a retreat in Ohio. We brought 
all of our DC staff and Ohio staff together to talk about how to better 
serve our constituents, how to define the mission. I asked John Glenn 
to come address that group. What a treat. Our staff had the opportunity 
to sit and talk to John Glenn about his career, but more importantly, 
to talk about his passion for public service. The mission he gave us 
was one of honor and respect and decency for our constituents and to 
serve the people. That was his life.
  John Glenn's life story touches our hearts today, and his life story 
is also part of American history.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sasse). The Senator from Delaware.
  Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, I just want to thank our colleague from 
Ohio for recalling the memory, the life of John Glenn and his wife 
Annie. I was privileged to know him. I am an Ohio State graduate, Navy 
ROTC. I am a retired Navy captain and a huge admirer of John Glenn and 
his bride.
  One of my fondest memories of them was at an Ohio State football game 
a few years ago. As the Senator from Ohio knows, one of the big 
attractions at an Ohio State football game at halftime is to script 
``Ohio,'' where the band spells out the word ``Ohio.'' Usually one of 
the tuba players kind of dances around for a while and then dots the 
``i.'' So fans are used to that happening. On this particular occasion, 
no tuba player came forward to dot the ``i,'' but John Glenn and Annie 
went onto the field and dotted the ``i,'' to the amazement and delight 
of 100-and-some-thousand fans. Later on, they came up. I was up in the 
President's box with President Gordon Gee. I am not sure; maybe my 
friend from Ohio was there as well. But what a joyous memory that was.
  He ran for President briefly too. I was pleased to support him. He 
didn't stay in the race for long. I thought he was a great marine, 
great pilot, great astronaut, great Senator, and would have been a 
great leader for our country.
  The last thing I will say is this. Who is it that said this? Maybe--
Alan Simpson, former Senator from Wyoming. He used to say this about 
integrity: If you have it, nothing else matters. If you don't have it, 
nothing else matters.
  When you look up the word ``integrity'' in the dictionary--and 
``courage'' as well--you see John Glenn's picture.
  Thank you for your kind and wonderful words about John Glenn and 
Annie. Thanks for letting me say a few words as well.


                      Tribute to Federal Employees

  Mr. President, I have been coming to the floor, as the Senator from 
Ohio knows, for months--a couple of years, actually. I come maybe once 
a month. The Presiding Officer and I serve together, along with Senator 
Portman, on a committee called Homeland Security and Governmental 
Affairs. Part of our job is to do oversight over the Department of 
Homeland Security.
  I started doing something a couple of years ago. Instead of coming to 
the floor to talk about some controversy or things we disagree on with 
our colleagues across the aisle, I came to the floor for a different 
purpose. I came to the floor in order to say thank you to some of the 
240,000-some men and women who are part of the Department of Homeland 
Security, who work hard to help secure our country and make it safer in 
many ways.
  Over the last 4 years, I have been privileged to serve with our 
Presiding Officer and a number of others--Senator Portman and others--
as the senior Democrat on the Homeland Security and Governmental 
Affairs Committee, first as chairman for a couple of years with Tom 
Coburn from Oklahoma as our ranking member and for

[[Page 16410]]

the last 2 years as ranking member of the committee while Ron Johnson 
has been our chairman.
  I am incredibly proud of the fact that our committee is filled with 
hard-working men and women, Democrats and Republicans, who work across 
the aisle and party lines to bolster our national security and to help 
agencies and programs across government work better. We follow what I 
call the three C's: Communicate. Compromise. Collaborate.
  Those are things we do in Delaware, and on our committee I am happy 
to report that the three C's hold forth as well.
  Serving as the senior Democrat on our committee has truly been one of 
the great honors of my 16 years in the Senate. During my time as 
chairman and ranking member, I have had literally thousands of 
Department of Homeland Security employees--I have seen firsthand the 
exceptional work they do 240 hours a day--it probably feels that way--
24 hours a day, 7 days a week across our country and even around the 
world. I am pictured here with some of them. They do extraordinary 
things that some of us don't even know about.
  What we do is every week we come to the floor, and one of the best 
things you can do when people do great work is thank them. That is what 
I like to do. Since my first speech on this front a couple of years 
ago, I have come to the floor almost every month the Senate has been in 
session just to say thanks to a lot of deserving individuals, to teams, 
even entire agencies at the Department of Homeland Security that are 
doing extraordinary work quietly, behind the scenes, without a lot of 
attention, to enable the Department to carry out its vital missions--
actually its many vital missions.
  To everyone who has allowed me to share their stories with our 
colleagues here in Congress and the American people, thank you so much. 
To all of those folks at DHS who I have not had an opportunity to talk 
about or any agency I have missed, I want you to know that the work you 
do every day makes a real difference and is truly appreciated. While 
some of your accomplishments are hard to measure, they are nonetheless 
important. They are reflected in lives saved, tragedies prevented, and 
a sense of security that Americans feel as they go about their day.
  Across the Department of Homeland Security, there is so much good 
work going on each and every day that if I stood here every day for the 
next 2 years, I would have no shortage of remarkable public servants to 
highlight.
  As some of you may recall, the Department of Homeland Security 
employs over 240,000 Americans doing everything from securing our cyber 
network from cyber attacks, to guarding our ports of entry, to helping 
communities recover from natural disasters. Their mission is one of the 
most diverse and challenging, I think, of any agency, any department in 
the Federal Government. The diversity of the employees I have 
highlighted these past many months is the best illustration of the 
challenges facing the Department of Homeland Security every day and 
facing our country every day.
  Last month, I highlighted a U.S. Secret Service officer named Codie 
Hughes, who patrols the White House grounds as a uniformed Secret 
Service officer, and also Special Agent Tate Jarrow, who protects 
Americans from cyber criminals and financial schemes that are designed 
to cheat those Americans out of their hard-earned dollars.
  In January, I highlighted a fellow named Milo Booth who serves as the 
Federal Emergency Management Agency's tribal affairs officer, ensuring 
our Native American communities are prepared for natural disasters too.
  In September, I thanked Tito Hernandez, who travels around this 
country--and he does that about 9 months out of the year--in the 
aftermath of natural disasters to coordinate the support of State and 
local officials as they work through some of the most trying 
situations.
  Last year, last July, I spoke of the Department of Homeland Security 
Science and Technology Directorate and the state-of-the-art research 
work being done by Dr. Michelle Colby and Jon McEntee, who are 
researching how to protect us against, among other things, emerging 
diseases, such as avian flu and foot-and-mouth disease, while helping 
the Department develop the technologies of tomorrow.
  This past July, I thanked LCDR Tiana Garrett and Ingrid Hope with the 
Office of Health Affairs for their work to prepare our border agents, 
doctors, medical professionals, and first responders for the emerging 
threats posed by the Zika virus.
  From the Domestic Nuclear Detection Office, which tracks radiological 
materials across our country, to the National Cybersecurity & 
Communications Integration Center, which monitors cyber security 
attacks and coordinates Federal cyber security efforts with the private 
sector, the Department of Homeland Security is truly remarkable in its 
ability to work together as one cohesive unit to achieve its common 
mission.
  While it has not always been easy, the Department of Homeland 
Security has matured by leaps and bounds in order to become more than 
the sum of its parts in the 14 years since its creation. The Department 
remains the youngest Cabinet-level agency in the Federal Government. It 
is also the third largest agency in our Federal Government, behind only 
the Department of Defense and the Department of Veterans Affairs. It 
was created by bringing together more than 22 different Federal 
agencies. Let me say that again--22 agencies sort of glommed together a 
dozen or so years ago into one big Department, DHS.
  The sheer scope of the extraordinary challenge DHS and its employees 
face means that leadership across the Department is vital to the 
success of that organization, as it is to any other organization but 
especially one this large and unwieldy. I have always said that the key 
to success for any organization, no matter what size, is leadership. 
Just like integrity--if you have it, nothing else matters; if you don't 
have it, nothing else matters.


                         Secretary Jeh Johnson

  Thankfully, the Department of Homeland Security has been blessed with 
enlightened, committed leaders since its creation. I, for one, cannot 
begin to say enough about the leadership shown these past 3 years by 
DHS Secretary Jeh Johnson, pictured here on my left.
  Soon after being sworn in, Secretary Johnston immediately made clear 
that his highest priority would be management reform--he called it the 
Unity of Effort Initiative--intended to promote the coordination and 
cohesion throughout the Department. He also focused on employee 
engagement and the Department's hiring practices. He wanted to make 
sure that the good work at the Department was not going unnoticed.
  Through his steady leadership, DHS has begun to slowly but surely 
turn--kind of like an aircraft carrier in the Navy--improving morale by 
3 percent across the Department in the last year alone--the first 
increase in the Department I think in some 6 years. We are happy to see 
them bottom out and the improvement of the morale--the Department is 
heading in the right direction again. Jeh Johnson and his team deserve 
a lot of credit for that. I think, frankly, so does our committee, the 
Homeland Security Committee, and the good work we have done to try to 
make sure there is a good leadership team in place at DHS and that we 
convoy clearly our gratitude to those men and women who work there--
240,000 of them.
  Being a change agent in the Federal Government can oftentimes be 
difficult, but I am confident that Secretary Johnson's dedication and 
his perseverance will make a lasting impact on the agency's greatest 
assets--its dedicated employees.
  To Secretary Johnson, to his family, to his bride, I just want to say 
thank you for your extraordinary service. Every American is safer 
thanks to your leadership and your tireless efforts. Thank you, Jeh.


                           Alejandro Mayorkas

  Until recently, Secretary Johnson's right-hand man was a fellow named 
Alejandro Mayorkas, a native of Cuba who came here a long time ago with 
his

[[Page 16411]]

family, on the run, if you will. I like to call him Ali; so do most 
other people.
  Ali recently stepped down as Deputy Secretary of the Department of 
Homeland Security--that is the No. 2 slot there--but for 7 years, 
including one-third or so as the No. 2 person, Ali was working 
tirelessly to improve the security of our Nation and improve the 
operations of the Department before he became Deputy Secretary. In that 
role, he was instrumental in strengthening the Department's cyber 
security policies, as well as developing critical immigration programs 
that cut down on fraud and helped promote economic growth.
  Ali was a dedicated and thoughtful leader. His impact on the 
Department will continue to be felt for years to come in streamlined 
DHS operations that allow employees to spend less time on paperwork and 
more time on protecting Americans.


                               Russ Deyo

  When Ali left the Department a month or two ago to return to the 
practice of law, the Department's Under Secretary for Management, a 
fellow named Russ Deyo--rhymes with Rio--stepped in to fill his shoes.
  As Under Secretary for Management, Russ has proved to be an effective 
leader also. With a strong but quiet demeanor, he is not afraid to make 
tough decisions.
  Russ has been responsible for overseeing the Department's efforts to 
get the Department off of GAO's high-risk list. What is that? Well, the 
high-risk list is something the GAO puts out every other year. It is a 
high-risk list of wasting taxpayer money.
  DHS, as well as a lot of other agencies, has been on it for quite a 
while. Russ has made very clear, with the support of Jeh Johnson and 
Ali Mayorkas, that they want to get off of that list the best they can. 
I think one of the greatest accomplishments may have been overseeing 
the creation of employee satisfaction programs in each and every 
component. I think they also got a clean audit. I think the Department 
of Defense, which has been around since the late 1940s, has never 
gotten a clean financial audit. I think for each of the last 4 years, 
the Department of Homeland Security has set a great example. It has 
gotten a clean financial audit.
  I wish to say if you can't manage your finances, how do you expect to 
manage your whole department? That is just one aspect of the 
improvements being made.
  With this information, Secretary Johnson and his leadership team 
across the Department can ask every single DHS employee: How are we 
doing? How can we help? What can we do better?


                              Craig Fugate

  Another DHS leader whom we all admire for his leadership and steady 
hand during some of those challenging times is the Administrator of 
FEMA, the Federal Emergency Management Agency. His name is Craig Fugate 
and he hails from Florida.
  For the last 8 years, Administrator Fugate has admirably led Federal 
responses and efforts through numerous disasters, including Superstorm 
Sandy, which landed a direct hit on the east coast, including a hit to 
my own State of Delaware. Throughout his tenure, Craig has used his 
whole community approach to strengthen our national resiliency and help 
millions get back on their feet after a disaster. I know I speak for 
countless Americans when I say: Craig, thank you for your dedication to 
the mission of FEMA, for your years of leadership to our country, and 
the leadership you provided for a very good team across America.


                            Peter Neffenger

  At the Transportation Security Administration, affectionately called 
TSA, retired Coast Guard VADM Peter Neffenger has helped his agency 
respond quickly and effectively to a historic surge in airline travel 
and navigate some of the busiest travel days in American history. Last 
month, over the course of just 7 days, TSA helped 16.5 million 
Americans travel safely to visit family and friends over the 
Thanksgiving holiday. His continued efforts to innovate while ensuring 
uniform training for all TSA officers--we call them TSOs--have 
streamlined security screening at our airports and ports of entry 
without compromising passenger security. The millions of Americans who 
travel through our airports each week are measurably safer, thanks to 
Vice Admiral Neffenger's service and that of the men and women he 
leads.
  I just wish to say about the folks at TSA that whenever I go through 
airport security, I always thank them. I tell them who I am, tell them 
who the Senator is--the junior Senator from Nebraska--and tell them how 
much we appreciate the work they do. When you see people doing a good 
job, when you are going through an airport, just take a minute and 
thank these folks. Thank these men and women. It goes a long way. They 
have had a very tough job because over the course of Thanksgiving 
weekend, they had 16.5 million people trying to get through security--
actually, get to the airport, get their families packed up, in their 
vehicles, cab, Uber, or a transit bus, and try to get to the airport, 
get a place to park, get through security, get on a plane--make their 
plane.
  For the folks at TSA, their job is to make sure that nobody with 
malintent gets through security. You have all these people trying to 
get through as fast as they can, get on their plane, and get going. 
Then you have folks at TSA who are trying to make sure that nothing 
tragic happens in the meantime. That is a tough job. It is a tough job, 
and I urge you to give them a little bit of love and thank them for 
what they are doing from time to time.
  Every time I speak on the floor about TSA, I encourage people to say 
thank you, and I have just done it one more time.
  Our Nation is truly fortunate to have the Department of Homeland 
Security we have today. The few men I mentioned just now are the tip of 
the iceberg when it comes to truly great public servants at the helm of 
DHS. There are many more. A number of them are charged with 
organizations that work behind the scenes, quietly accomplishing their 
missions so that the rest of us can go about our lives uninterrupted 
every day.


                  Suzanne Spalding and Phyllis Schneck

  At something called the National Protection and Programs Directorate, 
Under Secretary Suzanne Spalding works with her great team to protect 
our Nation from ever-evolving cyber attacks. Her diligent team includes 
her deputy at the Directorate, Deputy Under Secretary Phyllis Schneck. 
I kid her. She is from Georgia Tech. I call her ``Ramblin Wreck''--
Phyllis Schneck, the Ramblin Wreck from Georgia Tech. She is a dynamo. 
She left the private sector where she was making a lot of money to come 
to serve her country and help lead the cyber security efforts of the 
Department of Homeland Security.


                             Joseph Clancy

  Also over at the Secret Service, we have a Director named Joe Clancy, 
who leads an organization of men and women who performed flawlessly as 
the agency has protected dozens of officials during the recent election 
season.


                            Kathy Brinsfield

  Over in the Office of Health Affairs, Chief Medical Officer Kathy 
Brinsfield leads some of the best and brightest scientists in the world 
in their cutting research into emerging diseases.


                            Reggie Brothers

  At the Science and Technology Directorate, Reggie Brothers has led 
efforts across the Department to make smart investments in research and 
development for DHS and their State and local partners.
  To all of you and to your agencies, again, a big thank you. These are 
just a few of the incredible leaders at the Department of Homeland 
Security, just a few.


  Sarah Saldana, Gil Kerlikowske, Leon Rodriguez, Admiral Paul Zukunft

  There are so many more who deserve our thanks for steady leadership, 
leaders such as Sarah Saldana, who leads Immigration and Customs 
Enforcement, known as ICE.
  Gil Kerlikowske at Customs and Border Protection is a terrific 
leader.
  Leon Rodriguez--I call him ``Leon Red Bone''--is director of U.S. 
Citizenship and Immigration Services.

[[Page 16412]]

  We have the commandant of the U.S. Coast Guard, ADM Paul Zukunft, 
whom everyone understandably simply calls ``Admiral Z.''
  We say a very big thank you to all of you for your service and the 
hard work of those across your agencies. A retired Navy captain salutes 
the Coast Guard.
  After 4 years as the lead Democrat on the Homeland Security and 
Governmental Affairs Committee, having met thousands of DHS employees, 
I believe our country is in many more ways more secure today than it 
was yesterday. However, given the evolving nature of the threats we 
face, this is not the time to spike the football; this is not the time 
to become complacent. We need to remain vigilant, continue to work 
smarter, and continue to work harder.
  With that thought in mind, I close by expressing the gratitude of all 
Americans to the Presiding Officer and to everyone at the Department of 
Homeland Security. I wish you and your families a very merry Christmas 
and a joyous holiday, as well as a more peaceful New Year for all of 
us. Keep up the good work. We are proud of you. Stay safe. God bless 
you all.
  With that, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Dakota.
  Mr. ROUNDS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in 
morning business for up to 10 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                  National Defense Authorization Bill

  Mr. ROUNDS. Mr. President, my friend the Senator from Delaware has 
spoken very eloquently about the need to say thank you to our Members 
who work within TSA. I wish to speak in terms of members of the Armed 
Forces and to remind the people of America that we are free and we will 
be able to enjoy a very precious holiday season coming up because the 
men and women who wear that uniform are on the frontlines. It is their 
families who are making that sacrifice as they are away from home. We 
should keep all of them in our prayers and remember to say thank you to 
their families for the sacrifices they have made. Thank you to the men 
and women on the frontlines who keep us safe.
  With that, as a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, I am 
pleased that we came together once again to pass the National Defense 
Authorization Act, a vital piece of legislation. It is a testament to 
the leadership of the chairmen and ranking members in the House and 
Senate that Members on both sides of the aisle have continued to work 
together to pass the NDAA again this year, and I thank them for their 
leadership.
  It is important to continue this 55-year-plus tradition of passing 
the NDAA to show our troops and their families that they have our full 
support. As in years past, this year's NDAA includes policies to 
support our wounded warriors, our troops, and their families. It also 
provides our military with the tools needed to combat our enemies 
around the globe.
  However, it is also the most significant defense reform legislation 
in decades. An example is its significant provisions to reform how the 
Department of Defense acquires new weapons.
  Given that the No. 1 responsibility of the Federal Government is the 
defense of our Nation to keep Americans safe, it is reassuring that 
Congress has continued to pass the NDAA every year for over half a 
century.
  To many Americans and even Members of Congress, the most visible 
manifestation of our NDAA is our combat vehicles, ships, and combat 
aircraft that have, with our outstanding servicemembers, made our Armed 
Forces second to none. Less visible are things such as training, 
maintenance, and adequate munitions, without which success on the 
battlefield would be in doubt.
  I am pleased that this year's NDAA adequately authorizes funds for 
the DOD's operations and maintenance account, which provides the 
dollars for these vital but less visible functions.
  The NDAA also stops the Department of Defense's proposed drawdown of 
an additional 15,000 soldiers, 2,000 marines, and approximately 4,000 
airmen for fiscal year 2017.
  Additionally, it addresses munitions shortfalls and provides funds 
for depot maintenance and facilities sustainment.
  Importantly, it does not require women to register for the Selective 
Service and does not contain TRICARE prescription drug co-pay 
increases, both of which have been of concern to me and many other 
South Dakotans.
  I am pleased it includes a number of provisions which I offered to 
address the serious cyber threat our Nation faces. One of those 
requires the President to define when an act in cyber space requires a 
military response. Another requires training for DOD hiring officials 
on how to use the special authorities Congress gave them to expedite 
the hiring of cyber security professionals and pay these civilian 
employees more than what is normally authorized for civil service.
  I am also pleased that the conference report includes my mental 
health measure requiring the Department of Defense to more carefully 
monitor prescriptions dispensed at military treatment facilities for 
the treatment of PTSD.
  I join my colleagues in urging the President to continue the decades-
long tradition of signing the NDAA into law. While we champion this 
year's bill, the most significant defense reform legislation in 
decades, we must extend our view beyond fiscal year 2017.
  For the past 2 years, I have served as a member of the Senate Armed 
Services Committee, bearing witness to potential challenges that could 
threaten our national security if we do not address them now, including 
arbitrary budget caps. These arbitrary budget caps have forced the 
kinds of false choices that are potentially so devastating for our 
Armed Forces. In particular, we must avoid the false choice of paying 
for readiness while assuming risk for modernization or vice versa.
  The American people expect us to adequately defend America next year 
and for every year to come. Job one in that regard is to remove the 
arbitrary budget caps and the threat of sequestration. Only by doing so 
can Congress fulfill its No. 1 responsibility--keeping Americans safe.
  In closing, I thank Chairman McCain, Ranking Member Reed, my Armed 
Services Committee colleagues, and all of our staffs for the great 
legislation we had the honor to vote for today.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I would like to associate myself with the 
objections raised by my colleague from Arizona, Senator Jeff Flake, 
concerning the 2016 Water Resources Development Act, WRDA, conference 
agreement.
  I must express my dissatisfaction with the WRDA conference agreement. 
While I applaud the hard work by the conferees to advance a number of 
worthwhile flood control projects--some of which are located in my home 
State of Arizona--my objection centers around the inclusion of a 
massive drought relief package for California at the expense of drought 
priorities for Arizona.
  For the past 2 years, Senator Flake and I have been negotiating with 
the committees of jurisdiction and certain offices of the California 
delegation to ensure that any drought legislation that comes to the 
Senate floor would be applicable to all Western States. We won 
provisions in the Senate-passed WRDA bill and the energy bill to 
expedite salt cedar removal and increase storage capacity for 
reservoirs across the West. Unfortunately, our WRDA provisions have 
been stripped by the conferees.
  I cannot support a drought package that is overly California-centric 
while my home State and other Western States are also suffering under 
an oppressive 16-year drought.

                          ____________________